Appeal No. 97-2642 Page 26
Application No. 08/094,461
We agree with the appellant (brief, pp. 44-47, 49 and 50)
that the details of the booster heater recited in dependent
claims 3, 17, 36 and 37 and independent claim 8 are not taught
or suggested by the applied prior art. Specifically, the
applied prior art does not suggest or teach a fuel-fired
booster heater (claims 3 and 8), a third heat exchanger which
receives heat from a burner (claim 17), or a fuel-fired burner
(claims 36 and 37). Since the subject matter of claims 3, 8,
17, 36 and 37 would not have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. §
103 based on the applied prior art, we reverse the examiner's
rejection of claims 3, 8, 17, 36 and 37.
With regard to claims 16, 18 and 19, we have affirmed the
rejection of these claims above based on the combined
teachings of Raymond, Jeppson and McEachern. The additional
teachings of McConnell are merely surplusage and does not
alter our view that the combined teachings of the applied
prior art would have suggested the claim subject matter of
claims 16, 18 and 19. In that regard, it is our view that
when Raymond's oil heating system (i.e., the pressure drop
across the restrictor 82) has been augmented with a heating
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007