Appeal No. 2004-0539
Application No. 09/921,254
(CO) air pollution. In addition, the invention relates to the
methodology for operating such burners, whereby substantial
reductions of CO and NOx emissions are achieved relative to
existing burners. Independent claims 1 and 6 more specifically
set forth the burner structure, while independent claims 12 and
17 set forth the method for operating the burners. A copy of
claims 1, 6, 12 and 17 may be found in the Appendix to
appellants' brief (Paper No. 12).
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Brazier et al. (Brazier) 4,708,638 Nov. 24, 1987
Bury et al. (Bury) 5,634,785 Jun. 3, 1997
Claims 1 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Brazier in view of Bury.
Rather than reiterate the examiner's full statement of the
above-noted obviousness rejection and the conflicting viewpoints
advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the rejection,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 13, mailed
June 13, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the
rejection, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 12, filed March
22
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007