Appeal 2007-1562
Application 10/865,666
Appellant argues that Henderson does not anticipate the claimed
invention because the claimed invention requires the introduction of the
fluid stream from an apparatus connected to the downstream end of the
transition zone while Figure 2 of the reference depicts the introduction of the
oxygen containing gas at a location immediately downstream from a series
of expansion and choke zones (Br. 12). Regarding claim 12, Appellant
argues that the apparatus comprises a hollow vessel having at least one inlet
for introducing a fluid stream into the interior of the vessel and the outlet to
allow the fluid stream to exit the vessel. Appellant asserts that Henderson
does not teach or suggest the hollow vessel having an inlet and outlet as
required by claim 12 (Br. 14-15). Regarding claim 13, Appellant asserts that
Henderson does not describe a hollow vessel having an annular outlet as
required by claim 13.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner found that
Henderson describes a modular apparatus for producing carbon black that
comprises all of the reaction zones specified by the claimed invention
(Answer 3). The Examiner refers to the similarity of the Figure 1 and Figure
2 apparatuses. Henderson discloses that the reactors depicted in Figures 1
and 2 are the same except for the opposing views of the reactor (Henderson,
col. 3, ll. 28-33). The reactor of Figure 1 includes element 30 which is a
means for introducing feedstock into the reactor (Henderson, col. 4, ll. 31-
40). Regarding claims 12 and 13, Henderson discloses the reactor comprises
a means 66 for introduction of gases through annular wall 68 into vanes 64
that are positioned in the perimeter walls of the pyrolysis zone. The vanes
function to direct the oxygen containing gas around the perimeter of the
pyrolysis zone (Henderson, col. 7, ll. 47-68). Thus, the Examiner properly
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013