Appeal 2007-3670
Application 10/404,701
“tubes”) extend into the reactor 10 (i.e., mixing vessel) (Answer 9). We
agree.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner properly construes
the “autothermal reformer reactor 10” as corresponding to the claimed
“mixing vessel.” Hershkowitz discloses that the goal of the autothermal
reformer reactor is “that the streams [i.e., the fuel and oxidant streams]
achieve a high degree of mixedness in a minimum amount of time and
distance, before gas phase reactions begin to occur at any substantial level”
(Hershkowitz 10). Therefore, as disclosed by Hershkowitz, within the
autothermal reformer reactor 10 mixing is occurring such that it is
reasonable to construe the claim feature, “mixing vessel,” as corresponding
Hershkowitz’s autothermal reformer reactor 10.
Once the injector means 20 (or 11) is inserted into the top of the
autothermal reformer reactor 10 (i.e., mixing vessel), the passages 23 (i.e.,
inlet tubes) would be “extending into the mixing vessel and toward said exit
[of the mixing vessel]” as required by Appellant’s claim 1. The “exit” of the
mixing vessel corresponds to the bottom part of the autothermal reformer
reactor 10 which leads to the fixed catalyst bed 16 (Hershkowitz, Figure 1)
and passages 23 (i.e., tubes) are directed downwardly toward the “exit.” In
other words, because the passages 23 (i.e., tubes) in the injector means 20
are contained within the autothermal reformer reactor 10 (i.e., mixing
vessel), the passages 23 (i.e., tubes) must be “extending into the mixing
vessel” as required by claim 1.
Regarding Appellant’s argued claim feature that the “discharge ends
of the [inlet] tubes are downstream of the discharge end of said second
inlet,” the Examiner position is that Hershkowitz’s Figure 1 shows that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013