Appeal No. 2004-0539
Application No. 09/921,254
modify the burner of Brazier to incorporate a fuel gas injector
arrangement like that at (10) of Bury for the desirable purpose
of providing combustion staggering (Bury, col. 5, lines 15-24),
which allows the maximum temperature of the gaseous fuel flame to
be limited (Bury, col. 1, lines 32-40). In that regard, the
examiner notes that reduction of flame temperature is well known
in the art to desirably aid in reducing the production of NOX
(Brazier, col. 1, lines 6-10). Implicit in the examiner's
rejection is that the method of operating a burner for reduced CO
and NOX emissions as set forth in claims 12-21 on appeal would
obviously and inherently be performed when operating the burner
of Brazier as modified by Bury.
We concur in the examiner's assessment of obviousness of the
claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the
combined teachings of Brazier and Bury. Like the examiner
(answer, pages 4-5), we do not see that the mere fact that Bury
is not a venturi type burner, like that seen in Brazier, would
have deterred one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants' invention from making the combination as posited by
the examiner, especially since Bury (col. 1, lines 20-32)
recognizes that a venturi-type arrangement for the recycling of
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007