Appeal 2006-1068
Reissue Application 08/425,766
chamber, (2) the oxygen starved second combustion chamber, and (3) the
liquid filter of Applicants’ invention. [Id., page 3.]
. . . .
. . . . Houser does not profess to reduce the oxides of nitrogen, CO,
NO, HCL and SO2 that may be found in the exhaust gases as do the
Applicants. Houser instead requires a smokestack for the remaining gasses
to be discharged. See Column 5, lines 18-58. The present invention cools
and cleans the gasses and particulate after they leave the second chamber by
means of a liquid filtering system, Claim 1, lines 13-16, Claim 22, lines 16-
23, not shown or suggested in any of the references relied upon by the
Examiner. Applicants’ claimed invention avoids the need for a smokestack
(none is shown or described in Applicants’ disclosure) because the liquid
filter removes the smoke! [Id., page 5.]
. . . .
. . . . The percolating, liquid filter module claimed by Applicants is
very different from Houser’s element 37. The liquid filtering module
claimed by Applicants removes soluble compounds from the gasses and
particulate by sending the gasses through the liquid so as to form a foam or
froth which is circulated while the trapped bubbles rise to the surface and
continue on to a neutralizer module 100. The liquid filter system not only
operates differently than Houser but functions to remove completely
different substances, e.g., CO, NO, SO, and SO2. Claim 1, lines 13-16;
Claim 22, lines 20-23; Claim 25. [Id., page 6.]
. . . .
Hadley discloses a dual combustion chamber arrangement, but like
Houser, does not show, teach, or suggest using an oxygen rich atmosphere in
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007