Appeal 2006-1068
Reissue Application 08/425,766
means. [Id., page 4.]
5. Because the Examiner continued to be unpersuaded by these arguments,
the Appellants permitted the ‘419 application to become abandoned in favor of the
‘474 application. As in the parent application, the originally filed independent
claims including claim 1 of the ‘474 application contained a liquid filter (or
corresponding) limitation. These claims again were rejected by the Examiner
under Section 103 as being unpatentable over Hadley and Kent. In their June 17,
1992 response to this rejection, the Appellants presented patentability arguments
based on a number of claim features. However, none of these argued claim
features included the liquid filter (or corresponding) limitation of the independent
claims.
6. On June 30, 1992 in a non-final Office action, the Examiner rejected all
claims under Section 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art patents to Houser
and Kent and possibly Hadley (i.e., the record is unclear as to whether the non-
final rejection included the Hadley reference). In response to this non-final
rejection, the Appellants filed an appeal brief on October 29, 1992 wherein the
following arguments were presented:
In the June 30, 1992 Office Action, the Examiner indicated that the
Applicants’ invention was unpatentable over U.S. Patent 4,958,578 to
Houser in view of U.S. Patent 4,922,841 to Kent. There are, however,
numerous differences between the references and the present application,
and these references, alone or together, do not show, teach, or suggest the
novel incineration system requiring (1) the oxygen enriched first combustion
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007