Appeal No. 99-0029
Application 08/595,967
combining Vatsky and Hess would be the result of hindsight derived from appellant's own disclosure.
We do not agree. In the Vatsky apparatus, the fuel, consisting of pulverized coal suspended in
air, enters at 28 and swirls through chamber 26, being discharged through member 24 in a direction
which is at a right angle to the direction in which it was introduced (col. 5, lines 38 to 42, and Fig. 1).
Hess discloses that when granular or particulate particles being transported through a conduit must
make a sharp right angle turn, the wall of the elbow opposite the entry port will be rapidly eroded (col.
1, lines 14 to 25). To overcome this problem, Hess teaches that the elbow should be constructed as
shown in Fig. 1, for example, with a chamber 20 for swirling a portion of the particles entering at port
12. Since the incoming particulate coal particles in the Vatsky apparatus must make a sharp right
angled turn, as shown in Fig. 1, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use an elbow with
a swirl chamber, as disclosed by Hess, in order to minimize erosion at that point. The motivation or
suggestion to modify the Vatsky apparatus in this manner would come not from appellant's disclosure,
but from the teachings of Hess of the advantage thereof.
Turning to Henderson, appellant argues that this patent is nonanalogous art, and that it would
not have been obvious therefrom to provide the Vatsky burner with a conical vane, as claimed.
It is unnecessary to resolve the question of whether Henderson is nonanalogous art, for even
assuming that it is analogous, we do not consider that it would have suggested the claimed conical vane.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007