Appeal No. 2003-0771
Application No. 09/031,666
pipeline connected thereto for conveying a quenching agent to a
nozzle connected to a distal end of the pipeline. A further
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
independent claims 1, 13 and 17, which appear in an appendix to
appellants’ brief.
The references relied upon by the examiner in the final
rejection as evidence of obviousness are:
Krynytzky et al. (Krynytzky) 3,253,677 May 31, 1966
Ronan et al. (Ronan) 5,045,217 Sep. 3, 1991
Williams 5,566,766 Oct. 22, 1996
Thorton-Trump 5,746,396 May 5, 1998
Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Krynytzky in view of Ronan, Williams and
Thorton-Trump.
Reference is made to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 8) and to
the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 9) for the respective positions
of appellants and the examiner regarding the merits of this
rejection.1
1Independent method claim 17 recites the step of operating
the pump to pump the quenching agent at a flow rate of “at least
about 3,000 gallons per minute.” Claims 20 and 21, which depend
from claim 17, appear to be inconsistent with the above noted
operating step of claim 17 in that they call for pumping the
quenching agent at flow rates of “about 2,100 gallons per minute”
and “about 1,500 gallons per minute,” respectively. These
apparent inconsistencies are deserving of correction upon return
of this application to the Technology Center.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007