Appeal No. 2004-0920
Application No. 10/261,253
chamber 200 would necessarily be modified to include an arched
bottom wall surface mounted above the combustion chamber in the
same way that chamber 13 of Starr is configured. Appellant
argues that Craver’s non-arched structure, shown, for example,
in Figures 7 and 8 of Craver, could just as easily fit into a
cylindrical combustion chamber, as into a rectangular combustion
chamber, and therefore, it would not necessarily be modified to
include an arched bottom wall surface.
Hence, the issue before us is whether it would have been
obvious to employ a bottom wall of a secondary combustion air
admission chamber being arched, in place of a straight bottom
wall.
We find that Starr shows in Figure 2 that it is
conventional in this art, when employing a cylindrical
combustion chamber 11, that the bottom wall of a secondary
chamber 13 can also be arched. In view of this teaching, we
determine that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to employ either a straight bottom wall or an arched bottom
wall for the secondary combustion chamber of the furnace
described in Craver, with a reasonable expectation of success of
forming a useful woodburning furnace. Appellant has not
provided any factual data to show that an arched bottom wall
will provide an unexpectedly superior result verses a straight
bottom wall. Appellant has also not convinced us that such an
incorporation would have an unreasonable expectation of success.
In summary, Starr shows that it is conventional in this art
to utilize an arched bottom wall. Incorporation of such a
configuration in Craver would thus have been obvious.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection. We need not
comment on the reference of Reintjes in making this
determination.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007