Appeal No. 95-1724
Application No. 08/011,604
shaped baffle of the type shown by Ivanov in order to “improve
the circulation” (Answer, page 6). However, the applied
references contain no teaching or suggestion that it would be
desirable and thus obvious to “improve the circulation” in
Heuer’s apparatus via a triangular shaped baffle of the type
shown by Ivanov. Significantly, it is the appellant rather
than Heuer who discloses use of a triangular shaped baffle in
order to “improve the circulation.” As a consequence, it is
our determination that the examiner’s conclusion is
inappropriately based upon impermissible hindsight derived
from the appellant’s own disclosure rather than some teaching,
suggestion or incentive derived from the applied prior art.
The rejections based upon Szekely and Bruno also cannot
be sustained. Contrary to the examiner’s belief, the chambers
disclosed in these references are not adapted for the
positioning of a spinning nozzle assembly therein at a
location such that a refractory baffle means is located under
the assembly. In all of the embodiments shown in these
references, the baffles are disposed under a portion of the
chamber which is quite plainly not adapted for the positioning
of a spinning nozzle assembly. For example, it is the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007