Appeal 2006-1068
Reissue Application 08/425,766
the first chamber, an oxygen starved atmosphere in the second chamber, and
a liquid filter. The present invention specifies such atmospheres for the
chambers and a liquid filter. Claim 1, lines 2-4, 7-9; Claim 22, lines 4-6; 9-
11. [Id., page 7.]
. . . .
. . . . The Applicants’ claimed invention incorporating a liquid
filtering module avoids entirely the need for a smokestack. Claim 1, lines
13-16; Claim 22[,] lines 15-23. The filtering components or steps operate to
remove or reduce oxides of nitrogen, CO, NO, HCL and SO2 that the Hadley
patent does not even mention, much less teach how to remove or reduce to a
level that can be directly vented to the atmosphere. [Id., page 7.]
. . . .
. . . . Most of the differences between the previous two patents relied
upon by the Examiner and the present invention hold true for Kent as well:
The Kent system does not use an oxygen rich first chamber and an oxygen
starved second chamber; does not use an air injection system that moves the
waste material and imparts a specified trajectory; does not use a percolating,
liquid filter; does not remove specified chemicals and heat from the gasses
and particulate to a degree that the gasses and remaining particulate may be
vented without a smokestack. [Id., page 8.]
. . . .
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007