Appeal 2007-1461
Application 10/463,956
and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Pershing in view of
Kychakoff.
For each rejection, the Examiner relies upon Kychakoff as teaching or
suggesting the control steps (measuring, determining, and adjusting steps)
and the control apparatus of the claims.
Appellants contend that Kychakoff does not teach or suggest the
required control and particularly, that in Kychakoff there is no one-to-one
relationship between primary combustion regions and detectors as required
by the claims, nor any determination of a delta value between the measured
flue gas component at a location and the average of the flue gas component
at all measured locations.
Appellants do not argue any particular claim apart from the others
with any sufficient specificity. Therefore, we select a single claim and
decide the issues on appeal based on that claim. We select claim 1.
II. DISCUSSION
The issues on appeal arising from the contentions of Appellants and
the Examiner are: (1) What does “delta value” as that terminology is used in
claim 17 encompass; (2) Does Kychakoff determine a “delta value” within
the meaning of the claim; (3) What kind of correlation between the detectors
and the primary combustion regions does claim 17 require; and (4) Does
Kychakoff teach the required correlation?
A preponderance of the evidence of record supports the following
Findings of Facts (FF):
1. Claim 17 is directed to a method “comprising” a number of control
steps.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013