Appeal No. 2000-1090 2
Application No. 09/086,990
Appellant’s request rehearing as the Breault reference in the portions referred to in
our Decision do not teach that certain sulfur compounds “in flue or off gas” fall within the
scope of “contaminants that are being removed from a gaseous emission by exposure to a
plasma confined to and generated within a reactor chamber as significantly required by all
claims under appeal,” (Request, pages 1 and 2.)
Initially, we find that the claimed subject matter is directed to a method of
“eliminating contaminants from a gaseous emission.” We found in our decision that,
“[t]he gases to be treated include sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen
and oxygen.” See Decision, page 5. There is no requirement in the claimed subject matter
that all the contaminants are eliminated. Indeed, there is no requirement that sulfur
contaminants per se be eliminated by the method of the claimed subject matter. Indeed, it
would have been sufficient to meet the requirements of the claimed subject matter that the
nitrogen contaminants alone would have been eliminated from a gaseous emission.
Notwithstanding our position supra, the entire thrust of Breault is directed to a
“method comprising a sulfur tolerant, high water vapor (about 3% to about 18%)
tolerant, packing-free coronal-catalyst.” See for example, column 2, lines 33-36 and 59-
64. We conclude that the coronal catalyst provides for the presence of sulfur. Our
position is further supported by the optional presence of, “a N/S scrubber where the
effluent or discharge from the coronal catalyst is introduced to the N/S scrubber.” See
column 2, lines 59-64. See also column 4, lines 12-14 and 43-48, wherein Breault
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007