Appeal No. 1999-1990 Page 10
Application No. 08/635,599
§ 1.192(c)(7), claims 2 through 5 fall with claim 1. Thus, it
follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2
through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is also affirmed.
The obviousness issue
We sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
In applying the test for obviousness , we reach the same 5
conclusion as the examiner (answer, p. 3). That is, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to have modified Fabrik's liquid
fuel burner to have an adjustable second passage as suggested
and taught by Dunham's nozzle so as to permit adjustment of
the fuel/air mixture to obtain optimum combustion efficiency
as well-known in the art.
5The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007