Appeal No. 99-0209
Application No. 08/643,048
atomization with minimal atomizing air flow,” as well as a
number of other benefits (Answer, page 5).
We do not agree with this conclusion. The mere fact that
the prior art structure could be modified does not make such a
modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the
desirability of doing so. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In our view, there
are several factors which would have acted as disincentives to
one of ordinary skill in the art to make the modification
proposed by the examiner. The first is that Amos already has
solved the problem of reducing NOx and why, therefore, would
the artisan wish to modify that system. Carrying this one
step further, Amos achieves the necessary mixing of the
separately injected fuel and air streams as they proceed
together along the length of the annular passages (68), and to
replace the fuel-only injectors with fuel/air injectors would
seem to provide no advantage. In addition, Amos utilizes gas
fuel while the fuel used in Bayer is liquid and,
notwithstanding the examiner’s opinion, there is no evidence
to support a conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007