Appeal No. 1999-0060
Application No. 08/567,771
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jensen in view of Vinz.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejection and remand the
application to the examiner. We need to address only the sole
independent claim, i.e., claim 1.
The appellants’ claim 1 requires a reflux column extending
between an evaporation tank and a condenser.
The examiner argues that Jensen’s conduit means 24 is a
reflux column (answer, pages 3-5). Jensen’s disclosure regarding
conduit means 24 is the following (col. 5, lines 3-11):
Liquid in the accumulator 20 is withdrawn through
conduit means 24. A portion of the liquid flowing
through conduit means 24 is provided as an external
reflux to distillation tower 10 through the combination
of conduit means 24 and 26. The liquid flowing through
conduit means 24 is also provided as an overhead liquid
fraction withdrawn from distillation tower 10 through
the combination of conduit means 24 and 28.
In response to the appellants’ argument that the dictionary
definition of “reflux” requires a structure that induces at least
a part of a fluid flow to reverse course and turn back while the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007