Ex Parte FORTUNA et al - Page 4




              Appeal No. 2001-1628                                                                  Page 4                
              Application No. 09/054,794                                                                                  


                     34, the exits of the air purge passage 36 and the fuel passage 38 being coaxial                      
                     as in the claimed invention, the fuel exiting the conical divergent tip of the fuel                  
                     injector being prevented from contacting the venturi walls 26 of the air injector by                 
                     the purging air 36; the venturi wall 26 being protected from contact with the fuel                   
                     by the inherent air boundary layer formed along said wall. It would have been                        
                     obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Koshoffer injector with the                
                     coaxial purging-air passage of Shekleton in order to prevent the fuel from                           
                     contacting the wall of the venturi, and therefore prevent the fuel coking from                       
                     occurring. The combination would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in                       
                     the art, in particular because the proper design of the Shekleton injector, i.e.,                    
                     surrounding the fuel jet in a shroud of air, preventing the fuel from hitting the hot                
                     venturi wall and consequently removing the necessary source of coking material                       
                     from the hot wall, did not suffer from the coking deficiency of Koshoffer.                           
                     Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would look at the coking-free design of                  
                     Shekleton, in order to cure the coking deficiency of Koshoffer.                                      


                                                       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, to the                       
              respective arguments articulated by the appellant in the brief (Paper No. 15, filed                         
              October 6, 2000) and reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed December 26, 2000) and to the                         
              examiner's response to argument set forth in the answer.   Upon evaluation of all the                       
              evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is                       
              insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims                      
              under appeal.  Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 to 7                   
              under 35 U.S.C. § 103.  Our reasoning for this determination follows.                                       









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007