Appeal 2006-1068
Reissue Application 08/425,766
Conclusion
There are distinctive, critical differences between the Applicants’
invention and the prior art. The three references cited as prior art do not
show, teach, or suggest using air injectors to inject air and waste material
into an oxygen rich first combustion chamber, delivering exhaust to an
oxygen starved second combustion chamber, or using a liquid filter to
remove the specified chemicals so as not to require a smokestack for release
of the exhaust as expressly claimed by Applicants. [Id., page 8.]
7. In response to the aforenoted brief, the Examiner issued a Notice of
Allowability on December 22, 1992 stating “[u]pon reconsideration of the prior art
references and claims rejected, the reasons for allowance of claims 1-14, 22-25 is
[sic] the inclusion of ‘the liquid filter of chemically treating the exhaust gases to
reduce Co, No and So gases’ [sic] which the prior art references fail to show or
suggest” (page 2). Subsequently, the ‘474 application matured into the ‘267 patent
for which the Appellants seek reissue on this appeal.
OPINION
We shall sustain this rejection for the reasons expressed in the principal and
the supplemental answers and for the reasons expressed below.
It is the Examiner’s basic position that appealed claim 1 is an attempt by
Appellants to impermissibly recapture subject matter surrendered by them through
deliberate arguments repeatedly made during prosecution before the Patent and
Trademark Office in their successful endeavor to avoid prior art and obtain the
‘267 patent for which reissue is sought. As support for his position, the Examiner
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007