Appeal No. 98-0358
Application 08/660,719
the selectively quoted portions from the “whereby” clause
referred to by appellants (main brief, page 4), like the
examiner (answer, page 4), we find it is accurate to say that
the “whereby when” clause clearly only addresses a prospective
use of the device with a burner and heat exchanger. Thus,
claim 1, as indicated, is drawn to a burner emission device
per se, and not to a combination of a
burner emission device, burner, and heat exchanger. As to the
recitation in claim 1 (line 2) of a single perforate member
having a plurality of holes thereon, we determine that this
language, read in light of the underlying disclosure
(specification, page 2), is clearly intended to address a
screen. The latter circumstance of the noted language of
claim 1 encompassing a screen is acknowledged by appellants
(main brief, page 4).
With the above understanding of claim 1, we turn now to
the prior art teachings relied upon in the rejection of
appellants’ claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007