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
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007