1

The Prior Art (e.g. US4289625, 1981) cited by the patent application US20130203144 already discloses the process of feeding a "pyrolysis syngas" to an "anaerobic digester", however the Prior Art covers pyrolysis gases within the scope of products of a thermal gasifier. Pyrolysis is one reaction within an overall gasification process, therefore gasification products contain pyrolysis syngas. Yet the application US20130203144 offers an overly broad Claim 1 - a) producing a synthesis gas from pyrolysis of a feedstock; and, b) adding the synthesis gas to an anaerobic digester.

  • What is your question specifically? – m3lvn Oct 5 '14 at 17:40
  • Can a new patent restrict the practice of Prior Art by being a more narrow, but necessary, inclusion in the Prior Art? For example in this case, the Prior Art would be: "washing a shoe in a washing machine", and the Application is "washing the sole of a shoe in a washing machine". The Prior Art includes washing the sole of the shoe. If the primary claim of the Application were granted, I am asking if one could no longer practice the Prior Art, because shoes include soles. So if one were to wash a shoe, one would be washing the sole as well and therefore conflicting with the Application. – Biogas Guy Oct 6 '14 at 0:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.