Appeal No. 2000-1090 3
Application No. 09/086,990
discloses , “the step of N/S scrubbing the Nox bearing gas stream that was exposed to the
packing-free coronal catalyst.” It is evident from our findings that the sulfur containing
compounds are exposed to the plasma to the same extent as the other gaseous components
present in the gaseous emission.
The appellant further requests rehearing as, “[t]he furnace (16) as referred to in
column 15, line 9-20 of the Breault patent indicated: ‘--in the test apparatus– in practice a
furnace may be omitted--.’ ” (Request, page 2). As to the utilization of a furnace
discussed in a description of the apparatus at column 14, line 59 to column 15, line 20,
we do not find that the statement, “[t]he furnace 16 is 3 feet in length in the test
apparatus but in practice a furnace may be omitted or it may be up to 10 ft or longer,”
column 15, lines 9-11, to negate anticipation. The presence of an alternate embodiment
does not in and of itself negate anticipation. Our determination of anticipation is based on
the unique merits of each case. In the instant case, we are cognizant that the teachings of
Breault disclose in detail and illustrate in Figure 2, a furnace 16 which meets the
requirements of the claimed subject matter. The presence of another embodiment does
not negate anticipation, particularly where there is a lengthy and complete description of a
principal embodiment which describes the presence of a furnace. We accordingly conclude
and maintain our decision that the teachings of Breault alone are sufficient to anticipate
claims 1 and 3 through 8 of the claimed subject matter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007