Appeal No. 1996-1141
Application 08/109,166
562 (CCPA 1972).
On this record, we find that the examiner has not provided sufficient evidence to
establish that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that
the invention was made to incorporate turbulence disclosed by Coldren into the method of
burning an exhaust gas disclosed by Soneta. The turbulence disclosed in Coldren is
created by flowing narrow streams of the gas at a slight mismatch of stream velocities
which creates a slight turbulence. The examiner has asserted that it would have been
obvious to modify the reaction scheme of Soneta as suggested by Coldren without
explaining how the turbulence created in the Coldren method of mixing reactive gases
would be incorporated into the Soneta silane gas burning process. Moreover, we agree
with appellants that there is nothing to teach or suggest that the Coldren process directed
towards mixing gases such as oxygen and methane or ethane would in any way be useful
in reacting pyrophoric gases such as silane in Soneta. In our view, the examiner has failed
to sustain his burden. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is reversed.
Claims 20-39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Soneta,
Coldren and Shaw.
Soneta differs from claim 30 in that Soneta does not suggest that after combining
the first and second flows to create a third flow, said third flow undergoes a change in
0
direction of approximate 90 or more.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007