Appeal No. 2001-1680
Application 08/890,471
According to appellant, he has developed a method for
recovering fumes from a container of roofing material which
overcomes the aforementioned prior art drawbacks. In
accordance with the claimed method, air in fluid communication
with the fumes of a container of heated material is drawn
through a conduit and past a burner assembly in the conduit,
the flame of the burner burning or otherwise consuming the
fumes. Specification, page 2, line 31-page 3, line 1. The
conduit is horizontally arranged and terminates in the hollow
interior of a housing such that fresh air can be drawn from
the hollow interior along with the air drawn from the conduit.
Id., page 3, lines 2-7. According to appellant, this method
prevents the tendency of fumes to escape from the source
during operation (id. at lines 14-18) and reduces the risk of
igniting the fumes or the material source of the fumes (id. at
lines 31-34).
Discussion
The initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness rests on the examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A proper
analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 requires, inter alia,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007