Ex Parte GREENE et al - Page 6



            Appeal 2006-1068                                                                                
            Reissue Application 08/425,766                                                                  

            was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over prior art patents to              
            Hadley and to Kent.  Via a paper filed August 19, 1991, the Appellants  responded               
            to this rejection with arguments which include the following:                                   
                        Not only does Hadley ‘652 fail to teach or suggest either the first and            
                   second combustion means of Claims 1 - 14 and 22 - 25, Hadley also fails to               
                   teach or mention a liquid filter arrangement as described and claimed by                 
                   Applicants.  Hadley only demonstrates use of a conventional baghouse 20                  
                   which performs just a part of the function of Applicants’ liquid filter –-               
                   apparently some particulate matter is captured in the baghouse –- there is no            
                   mention or suggestion of a chemical treatment to reduce the quantity of CO,              
                   NO, SO, HCL or SO2 as is required by the Claims of Applicants’ invention.                
                   [Id., page 3.]                                                                           
                                                                                                           
                         . . . .                                                                            
                        Finally, Kent shows a cooling and neutralizing tower that the                      
                   Examiner suggests meets the limitation of Applicants’ invention for a liquid             
                   filter.  Applicants respectfully submit that the cooling and neutralizing tower          
                   of Kent is entirely different and serves a completely separate purpose from              
                   the “liquid filter” of Claims 1 - 14  and the “liquid means” of Claims 22 - 25.          
                   In Claims 1 - 14, the liquid filter is for “capturing particulate matter                 
                   contained in said fire exhaust and for chemically treating said exhaust to               
                   reduce the quantity of CO, NO and SO” while in Claims 22 - 25, the liquid                
                   means is for “capturing particulate matter . . . and for chemically treating             
                   said fired exhaust to reduce CO, NO, HCL and SO2.”  Nothing in the cooling               
                   and neutralizing tower of Kent meets these two limitations.  To the contrary,            
                   in his disclosure beginning at Col. 6, line 59, Kent states that the purpose of          
                   the cooling tower is simply to cool the fired exhaust to reduce the                      
                   temperature of the particulate matter.  Nothing in Kent suggests that he adds            
                   anything other than water or that any other chemical reaction is taking place.           


                                                     6                                                      




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007