Appeal No. 2001-0370
Application No. 08/978,991
heavily laden stack gas. Duty, column 6, lines 23-26.
The examiner further maintains that even if the apparatuses
of figures 2 and 11 do include adsorbent, Duty still anticipates
the invention as claimed, stating that:
[w]hether a liquid passes through the deflector of Duty
et al by capillary action or dropwise, is irrelevant
since the liquid which leaves the lower surface of the
perforated deflector will be in the form of drops, as
required by the claims on appeal.
Examiner’s Answer, page 4. In so stating, the examiner makes an
assumption that water passes through the adsorbent material, but
does not indicate where this is taught in the reference.
Moreover, the examiner has failed to identify how the deflectors
meet the claim 1 limitation of “deflecting the portion of the
liquid away from the wall and reintroducing at least some of the
portion of the liquid as droplets into the passage.” (Emphasis
added.) Accordingly, the rejection is reversed.
Rejection of claims 1-8, 10-13 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Duty3
3Appellants separately argue the patentability of claims 1-8 and 10, and
claims 11-13 and 18. Appeal Brief, page 8; Examiner’s Answer, page 2,
paragraph (7). Accordingly, we decide this ground of rejection as to claims 1
and 11. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007