Appeal No. 2005-0715
Application No. 09/725,428
that “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of the invention was made [sic] to use the
control method as suggested by Kisters . . . for the scrubbing
step of Rossin . . . because such control method would
automatically control the amount of neutralizing agent (e.g.,
caustic solution) for the scrubbing step” (answer, page 6). As
for claim distinction (2), the examiner concludes that “[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention was made [sic] to incineration method
to carried [sic] out the process of Rossin . . . to raise the
process temperature by direct heating because such process is
known and conventional in the art as shown by Tom” (answer, page
7).
The deficiency of the examiner’s rejection arises from the
fact that claim distinction (1) is inaccurate. While it is true
that the method of Rossin does not include use of first and
second detectors as required by appealed claim 1, the examiner
erroneously believes that the first and second detector measuring
steps of this claim occur “before and after the scrubbing step”
(answer, page 5). Instead, the independent claim under review
requires “measuring with a first detector . . . before said waste
gases enter the waste gas purification system . . . ” and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007