Appeal No. 1997-2674
Application No. 08/266,809
the temperature for the purpose stated in the examiner’s
answer.
As to the retraction of supply conduit 24, the examiner’s
rationale is equally untenable. The examiner states that
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in
the art to move supply conduit 24 out of the boiler gas 60 and
out of opening 31 when supply conduit 24 is not adding
nitrogen oxide inhibiting reagent 28 to prevent supply conduit
24 from contacting the atmosphere of the boiler 10 for
extended periods of time and that, in doing so, the material
of atomization conduit 30 would provide further heat
protection for supply conduit 24 (examiner’s answer, pp. 6-7).
Again, however, there is no teaching or suggestion in Burton
to support the examiner’s rationale. Moreover, Burton teaches
the use of other means, such as the use of heat resistant
materials or a cooling fluid to counteract the high
temperature in the boiler (column 3, line 66 to column 4, line
2; column 7, lines 49-53). The examiner has not pointed to,
and we do not find any, evidence to indicate that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007