Appeal 2007-0492
Application 10/810,960
1 Rejections based on Ito
2 37. The Examiner finds that Ito teaches that "the nitrogen-enriched air from the
3 oxygen-enriched air generating means (that includes an oxygen selective membrane) may
4 be used to atomize liquid fuel (in this case, heavy oil, a carbon-containing feedstock).
5 (* * * Col. 3, ll. 46-56)." (Final at 6.)
6 38. The Examiner reasons that because ordinary workers "would recognize the
7 advantage in using an existing high(er)-pressure process stream to pressurize another
8 process stream based [on] environmental, economic, and system efficiency factors," such
9 workers would have used the low oxygen content stream to pressurize the liquid fuel
10 stream in fuel processor sections of fuel cell systems, as in Appellants' claims 45, 48, 61,
11 and other claims. (Final Rejection at 6, ¶ 8; 10–12, ¶ 12; and at 13, ¶ 13.)
12 39. With respect to claims 45, 48, and 61, Appellants argue that the Examiner's
13 reliance on the combined teachings of Okamoto, St-Pierre, and Ito to reject claims 45, 48,
14 and 61 is unsound because Ito does not teach the limitation common to those claims that
15 "the byproduct stream produced from the oxygen-enrichment assembly is used to
16 pressurize a supply of liquid fuel." (Brief at 13; emphasis original.)
17 40. In Appellants' words:
18 Ito discloses using nitrogen-enriched (i.e., oxygen-depleted) air from an
19 oxygen-enriched air generating means 8 for atomizing the fuel (e.g., heavy
20 oil) delivered to the burner 2 and thus provide for better combustion.
21 (Col. 3, line 44 – col. 4, line 42.) * * * Ito simply does not disclose
22 pressuring a supply of fuel with the oxygen-depleted stream from an
23 oxygen-enrichment assembly.
24 (Brief at 14.)
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013