Appeal No. 2000-01345
Application 09/097,176
to modify the centerbody of Pfefferle et al. to be
constructed from the non-catalytic material of
Retallick et al. because a centerbody constructed of
either catalytic or non-catalytic material may be
used from [sic, for] the same function of heating a
fuel/air mixture [answer, pages 4 and 5].
It is not apparent, however, nor has the examiner cogently
explained, why Retallick’s disclosure that combustion stages
downstream of an ignition stage can be catalytic or non-
catalytic would have suggested making Pfefferle’s element 11
non-catalytic. To begin with, a fair reading of the Pfefferle
reference shows that the catalytic nature of element 11 is
fundamentally important to Pfefferle’s goals and objectives.
Moreover, to the extent that Retallick is germane to Pfefferle,
it is Retallick’s ignition stage which would seem to be much
more relevant to Pfefferle’s combustion arrangement than
Retallick’s downstream combustion stages. Since this ignition
stage is catalytic, it would not have afforded any suggestion to
make Pfefferle’s element 11 non-catalytic. In this light, the
appellants’ position that the combination of Pfefferle and
Retallick proposed by the examiner stems from impermissible
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007