Appeal No. 1996-2893
Application 08/370,153
these independent claims cannot likewise be rejected on the above evidence.
B. Regarding Rejection of Claims 2, 7, 15, 19-20, 22 and 24
These claims are rejected on the combination of Boning, Dietz and Metz as
discussed above, and further in view of Burkel. Since Burkel does not overcome the
deficiencies noted in the combination of Boning, Dietz and Metz, the examiner’s rejection
of these claims fails for the same reasons discussed above in section A.
C. Regarding Rejection of Claims 3, 8, 16, 18, 21 and 23
These claims are rejected on the combination of Boning, Dietz and Metz as
discussed above, and further in view of Compton or the Zhao publication. [Note that the
examiner really needs Burkel as well for the rejection of claims 21 and 23 because they
depend on claim 19, for which Burkel was used. However, for this decision this omission
is unimportant]. Again since neither Compton nor Zhao can cure the shortcomings of the
combination of Boning, Dietz and Metz, the examiner’s rejection of these claims falls for
the reasons advanced in section A.
D. Regarding Rejection of Claims 1,3-6,8,10-11, and 16.
The examiner has rejected these claims as being obvious over Harbert alone. We
again take the broadest claim, claim 1, as the exemplary claim. The examiner states that
Harbert discloses a combustion study device which observes and records combustion
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007