Appeal No. 2003-0659
Application 09/463,540
periodically injecting the supplemental fuel in bursts into the
chamber and does not disclose that the chamber is narrow.
The examiner argues that Martin discloses that chamber 88 is
filled with reducing gas which displaces the exhaust gases
previously present in the chamber without significantly mixing
with those exhaust gases (answer, pages 6-7 and 9). This
argument is based upon an incorrect interpretation of the
reference. Chamber 88 is a fuel vaporization chamber which
supplies vaporized supplemental fuel for mixing with the process
stream containing exhaust gas (col. 10, lines 41-43; figure 11).
Martin does not disclose that chamber 88 ever contains exhaust
gas. Moreover, as discussed above, Martin teaches that his
reductant gas mixes with the exhaust gas.
The examiner relies upon Alcorn only for a disclosure of a
flow straightening matrix (answer, pages 7-8), and not for any
disclosure which remedies the above-discussed deficiency in
Martin.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has not carried
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of
the invention claimed in any of the appellant’s claims over the
combined teachings of Martin and Alcorn.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007