Appeal No. 1997-2674
Application No. 08/266,809
supply conduit (24) is not adding nitrogen oxide
inhibiting liquid reagent (28), Burton teaches that
it is important in the art of treating boiler gases
that the temperature in the boiler gas not destroy
the structural integrity of nozzles and their
support
(col. 2, lines 34-36), and Burton teaches the
atomization conduit (30) (i.e., the housing
surrounding supply conduit (24)) is made from a heat
resistant material (col. 6, lines 19-25). Burton,
also teaches that supply conduit (24) is made of a
heat resistant material (col. 3, line 66, to col. 4,
line 2). Thus, it is considered important to Burton
that the temperature of the atmosphere of boiler
(10) not damage the integrity of supply conduit
(24). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have moved supply conduit (24)
out of boiler gas (60) and out of opening (31) when
supply conduit (24) is not adding nitrogen oxide
inhibiting liquid reagent (28) (i.e., to have
retracted supply conduit (24) completely within
atomization conduit (30)) to prevent supply conduit
(24) from contacting the atmosphere of boiler (10)
for extended periods of time when such is not in use
where the material of atomization conduit (30) will
add further heat protection for supply conduit (24).
This will have the benefit of extending the life of
supply conduit (24) where Burton desires to prevent
premature heat damage to nozzles and their supports
and recognizes this damage to be a problem. [Answer,
pp. 6-7.]
We cannot agree. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
carries the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223
USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007