Appeal No. 99-0029
Application 08/595,967
hindsight reconstruction.
In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S.
1057 (1968).
The examiner also takes the position that even in the absence of Henderson, Vatsky would
meet the "conical vane" limitation of claim 29 because it discloses "conical vanes or plates (68)"
(answer, page 5) and "segments of conical vanes or plates (68)" (id., page 7). This is not persuasive
because claim 29 requires a conical vane, not segments of a conical vane, or plates spaced around the
circumference of the burner 24a, as shown by Vatsky.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 29, and therefore of claims 30 to 32, will not be sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 29 to 32 is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
JAMES M. MEISTER ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007