Appeal No. 98-1640 Application 08/535,850 At this juncture, we recognize the comparable structures shown by appellants in Figure 2 and the patentee Nielsen in Figure 6. Considering the subject matter of each of claims 1 and 11, as a whole, in view of the knowledge and level of skill in the art as reflected by the Nielsen document, we reach the conclusion, as did the examiner, that the feed nozzle of these claims would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art when appellants’ invention was made. Appellants’ argument has not persuaded us that the examiner erred in rejecting the content of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In particular, the arguments set forth in the briefs focus upon the following matters, which we now address. In the main brief (page 18), appellants emphasize the recitation in claim 1 of the second nozzle tip being adapted to substantially uniformly atomize a mixture of steam and heavy petroleum hydrocarbon. As we indicated above, Nielsen 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007