Appeal No. 1999-1051 Page 7
Application No. 08/652,740
It therefore is our conclusion that a prima facie case of obviousness has not been
established with regard to the subject matter recited in independent claims 1 and 9, and
we will not sustain the rejection of these claims or of claims 2, 3, 6-8, 10 and 11, which
depend therefrom.
We reach the opposite conclusion with regard to independent claim 14. This claim
is not nearly as detailed as claims 1 and 9, since it does not require a specific type of
transformer, that the transformer support at least one electrode, any particular spacing
between certain of the components, and a circuit that would be susceptible to malfunction
from EMI. Claim 14 merely recites a housing, a heat exchanger and a gas burner
operatively associated and located in the housing, a gas line providing gas to the burner, a
1
spark ignitor for igniting the gas in the burner, and an EMI housing substantially enclosing
the spark ignitor.
It is our view that, except for the EMI housing, all of the elements recited in the claim
are disclosed by Kaduki, considering that it would be inherent that the apparatus therein
disclosed be located within an overall housing and that the gas flame heats some sort of a
heat exchanger that also is located in that housing, as per Wallace. It is our further view
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide an EMI housing
substantially enclosing the spark ignitor, suggestion being found in the explicit teachings of
1In keeping with the specification, we interpret “EMI housing” to mean a housing that
will provide enhanced EMI protection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007