Appeal No. 1999-0020 Page 3
Application No. 08/641,021
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reasons which follow, we
cannot sustain the examiner's rejection.
Independent claim 11 reads as follows:
11. In combination, a furnace comprising at least one wall; and an air nozzle
comprising a housing having an inlet for receiving air and an outlet for
discharging the air, a mounting member for mounting the housing to the at least
one wall of the furnace for pivotal movement about a first axis to vary the air
discharge pattern from the outlet so that the air is discharged into the interior of
the furnace in a variable discharge pattern, and a damper blade mounted in the
housing about a second axis extending transversely to the first axis for splitting
the discharging air into two streams.
Chadshay, the primary reference relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the claims,
discloses a furnace having walls and vertically tiltable (column 2, lines 11-12, and column 5,
line 3) secondary air nozzles (9). Secondary air passes through a transition section (15), which
comprises louvers (18) for regulating the total secondary air received into the transition section
and two turning vanes (19, 20) which divide the transition section (15) into separate channels
(21, 22, 23). Flappers (25, 26, 27) are provided in the channels to control the amount of air
received in each channel. This combination of louvers and dampers permits plenary control of
all divisions and velocity of the secondary air through the transition section with the result that
the nozzle set (9) discharges the secondary air in a pattern and velocity and direction as desired
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007