Appeal No. 98-0358
Application 08/660,719
617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980) and In re Aller,
220
F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). For these reasons,
the rejection of claims 4 and 5 is affirmed.
The argument advanced by appellants in the main (pages 4
through 7) and reply briefs does not convince us of the
patentability of claims 1, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Contrary to the view taken by appellants (main brief, page 4),
we do not find that the labeling by Sheets of the use of
radiant screens in forced air burners as “not practical” to
detract from the explicit prior art teaching of screens for
the reduction of NO emissions. We would only add that, as to
x
air burners (not oil burners) Sheets considers screens “not
practical” only in the instance when flame temperatures are
“too high” and the oxidation atmosphere “too severe”. Again
contrary to the view of appellants (main brief, page 5), the
Kirkpatrick patent as earlier indicated provides ample
suggestion for a support member for a screen. Further, as we
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007