Ex Parte GREENE et al - Page 7



            Appeal 2006-1068                                                                                
            Reissue Application 08/425,766                                                                  

                   Further, Kent does not teach or suggest that his cooling tower can be used to            
                   remove the chemical compounds described in Applicants’ claim.  Clearly,                  
                   Kent does not teach or suggest any feature of Applicants’ invention as                   
                   described in Claims 1 - 14 and 22 - 25.                                                  
                        Applicants have shown that each of the references relied on omit                   
                   critical features of Applicants’ invention.  Moreover, no reference teaches or           
                   suggests the use of first and second combustion chambers where the first                 
                   combustion chamber incinerates waste material “in an oxygen rich                         
                   atmosphere” and the second combustion chamber incinerates the fired                      
                   exhaust in an “oxygen starved atmosphere.”  In addition, no reference                    
                   teaches or suggests a liquid filter that both captures particulate matter and            
                   treats the exhaust “to reduce the quantity of CO, NO and SO.”  Applicants                
                   therefore respectfully submit that the obviousness rejection has been                    
                   traversed.  [Id., pages 4-5.]                                                            
            4.  The Examiner found these arguments unpersuasive and finally rejected                        
            the elected claims including claim 1 of the ‘419 application.  In their November 12,            
            1991 response to this final rejection, the Appellants made the following arguments:             
                   Applicant[s] further submit[] that the liquid filter of Claim 1 and the                  
                   liquid filter means of Claim 22 require “recapturing said particulate matter             
                   contained in said fired exhaust and for chemically treating said fired exhaust           
                   gasses to reduce the quantity of CO, NO, and SO contained in said fired                  
                   exhaust.”  This limitation is not taught or suggested in any of the references.          
                   While Hadley ‘652 does show the use of liquid sprays to neutralize the                   
                   exhaust, his device does not serve the added function of capturing “said                 
                   particulate matter”.  The nature of the exhaust in Applicants’ invention has             
                   been more particularly described by the Amendment requiring that the                     
                   exhaust contains both “gasses and particulate matter”.  Nothing in the prior             
                   art teaches or suggests Applicants’ claimed liquid filter and liquid filter              


                                                     7                                                      




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007