Appeal No. 2003-0093 Page 3
Application No. 09/29213
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Mancini in view of either Richardson or Prociw.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 21) and the final rejection (Paper No. 14) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 20) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 22) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
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. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The appellant’s invention is directed to coke resistant fuel injectors for gas
turbine engines which produce a thoroughly blended fuel-air mixture for reducing
nitrogen oxide. The appellant’s claim 1, which is the only independent claim before us,
recites a pressure atomizing core nozzle disposed along an injector centerline and
having a fuel discharge orifice, first and second partitions circumscribing the nozzle to
define an inner air passage, a third partition circumscribing the second partition and
defining a secondary fuel passage, an outer wall circumscribing the third partition and
forming an annular outer air passage, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007