Appeal No. 2003-1788
Application No. 09/403,081
9, lines 16-25. For intensive mixing, the exit velocities of the
oxygen from oxygen nozzles are preferably in a Mach number range
between 0.4 and 2. See page 9, lines 35 through page 10, line 5.
Furthermore, appellants’ reaction chamber 8, combined with
appellant’s claimed intake velocity values, creates appellant’s
claimed “afterburning.” The examiner does not explain how such
afterburning is created in Gitman. This is especially true
because the examiner recognizes that the claimed velocity values
are not set forth in Gitman, but states “it is reasonably
concluded and surmised that this same oxygen-containing as
entering the same combustion chamber . . . will inherently be
injected at the same claimed velocity . . . .” Answer, page 10.
We find that such surmise is insufficient to set forth a prima
facie case of anticipation.
In view of the above, we determine that the examiner has not
established that Gitman discloses feeding oxygen gas into a
reaction chamber that is downstream and separate from a burner.
As pointed out by appellants on page 10 of the brief, Gitman does
not add oxygen to reactor 3.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the rejection of
claims 2, 5, 14, 17, 22, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Gitman.
II. The Obviousness Rejection
We also reverse the 35 U.S.C.§ 103 rejection of claims 2,
4-11, 13-15, 17, 18, and 21-24, because the examiner’s
obviousness rejection does not address the aforementioned
differences between appellants’ claimed subject matter and
Gitman, and does not provide an analysis as to why it would have
been obvious to have modified the differences of Gitman to arrive
at appellants’ claimed invention.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007