Appeal No. 2000-0803
Application 05/333,233
conclusion as to (1). We therefore will accept the examiner’s
position is this regard. However, appellant does take issue
with the examiner as to (2). In particular, appellant argues
on pages 6 and 7 of the brief that the examiner is in error in
considering the conically shaped reradiator 50 of Bryan as
being the equivalent of the claimed diverter. According to
appellant, Bryan’s inverted conically shaped reradiator 50
could not act as a diverter because gases impinging thereon
would flow through the holes therein and out from the unit
itself rather than being diverted.
From our perspective, the examiner’s implicit finding
that the conically shaped reradiator 50 of Bryan will act as a
diverter to divert the combustion gases and promote uniform
heating of the mantle is based on supposition and conjecture.
In this regard, the examiner’s position (answer, page 4) that
at least some of the gases would be deflected by Bryan’s
reradiator component 50 is not sufficient in light of the
presence of the large number of holes in component 50 that
would appear to allow a significant portion of the gases
impinging thereon to flow through the holes and out the end of
the unit. Without a clear and supportable factual finding
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007