Appeal No. 1998-1553
Application 08/595,965
mounting means (26) [answer, pages 4 and 5].
Henderson’s cone/vane 20, however, which functions as a
carbon black reaction mass accelerator, has little apparent
relevance to the burner assembly disclosed by Vatsky.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the teachings of the applied
references to indicate that this type of element would produce
a swirling or turbulent action of secondary air in the Vatsky
burner assembly as asserted by the examiner, or that such
swirling or turbulent action would even be desirable in the
Vatsky assembly. The examiner’s alternative contention that2
such a vane would direct and properly focus the secondary air
to Vatsky’s burner outlet assumes a deficiency in the Vatsky
structure which is not borne out by the references, i.e., that
the enclosure structure 32, 34, 38 and 40 surrounding Vatsky’s
outer tube 24 does not direct and properly focus air to the
burner outlet. Eaton’s disclosure of fins 71 to hold a casing
in spaced relation to a burner nozzle does not cure the
foregoing flaws in the examiner’s analysis.
2The examiner’s position here is at odds with the
appellants’ disclosure that the frustro-conical vane recited
in claim 11 provides a desirable stabilization of air flow.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007