Appeal No. 2003-0093 Page 5
Application No. 09/29213
are distributed along a plurality of circumferences which are spaced at different radial
distances from the nozzle axis, i.e., along concentric annular rings. From the
examiner’s explanation of the rejection, he also interpreted the limitation in that fashion.
Mancini discloses in Figure 1 a nozzle structure having at its downstream end a
primary fuel discharge opening 52 surrounded by an inner air passage 82, which
terminates at face 75 comprising a “multiple circumferentially spaced air discharge
apertures 74" (column 4, line 61 et seq.). There is no mention of the apertures being
positioned at different radii from nozzle axis A, and such cannot be ascertained from
Figure 1. Figure 6 illustrates an embodiment of the “face” of an embodiment of the
nozzle that is provided with a single circumferential array of apertures, although the
explanation does not explicitly relate it to the air apertures 74 of Figure 1. Thus, it is our
view that Mancini fails to disclose or teach providing orifices located at different radii
from the nozzle axis in the air distribution baffle that extends radially across the inner air
passage, as is required by claim 1.
We cannot agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to modify Mancini by adding an additional ring of orifices 74 to
cap 75, for no evidence has been provided in support of such; the examiner relies upon
his unsubstantiated opinion. The mere fact that the prior art structure could be modified
does not make such a modification obvious unless the prior art suggests the desirability
of doing so. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive which would have led one of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007