Appeal No. 1997-2674
Application No. 08/266,809
Here, we determine that the examiner has not met this
burden because there is no teaching or suggestion in Burton
that supports the examiner’s rejection. Specifically, Burton
does not teach or suggest to a person skilled in the art to
measure the temperature and to use this temperature
information to activate supply conduit 24 for spraying
additive at certain temperatures and to deactivate the supply
conduit 24 so that no reagent is supplied through the conduit
at all other temperatures as in the appellant’s claimed
invention. At best, Burton might suggest using the
temperature information to control the concentration of the
additive or the size of the droplets being sprayed into the
boiler (column 5, lines 25-52). However, this cannot result
in the appellant’s claimed process in which the spraying of
additive is stopped altogether under certain temperatures.
While the examiner alleges that one of ordinary skill in
the art “would have been motivated to monitor the temperature
of boiler gas (60) and activate supply conduit (24) to add or
stop the addition of nitrogen oxide inhibiting liquid reagent
(28)” (examiner’s answer, pp. 5-6), we find that such an
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007