Appeal 2007-0492
Application 10/810,960
1 "pressurizing a supply of liquid fuel." It does not limit the meaning of the term in the
2 present claims to any particular circumstance or mode
3 We take official notice, from items found in most households, that liquids are
4 typically "atomized" by forcing them rapidly through an orifice under pressure.
5 Although Ito does not describe exactly how the byproduct, low-oxygen, high-nitrogen
6 content gas stream is used to atomize the liquid fuel, we can see from Ito Figure 4 that, as
7 summarized by Appellants, the nitrogen-enriched stream is "delivered via pipe conduit 25
8 to the fuel spraying cylinder 20 of burner 2, where it atomizes a fuel stream delivered via
9 fuel supply pipe 4 to the fuel spraying cylinder 20." (Brief at 14; Bold original.) The
10 only reasonable interpretation on the present record is that the fuel is atomized by being
11 forced at high speed, under pressure, through an orifice. The pressure, according to Ito, is
12 provided by the byproduct gas from the oxygen enrichment means. On the present record,
13 this fully meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation that the byproduct
14 air stream is used to "pressurize a supply of liquid fuel."
15 Accordingly, we determine that Appellants have not borne their burden of
16 demonstrating reversible error on the part of the Examiner with regard to the teachings of
17 Ito.
18 F. ORDER
19 On consideration of the record and for the reasons given, the Examiner's
20 rejections are AFFIRMED.
-21-
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013