Appeal No. 2006-0376
Application No. 09/971,866
Rejection of claim 4.
On page 12 of the brief, appellant argues:
Although Reynolds ‘853 and Harneit ‘272 disclose horizontal movement of
an auxiliary burner, the combination used in the claimed invention
substantially departs from the Reynolds ‘853 and Harneit ‘272 disclosures,
in a sense that, in the claimed invention, normal movement of the auxiliary
burner unit is restricted by the guide structure to substantially linear
movement.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s argument. Claim 4 includes the
limitation “wherin the auxiliary burner housing is movable in a horizontal
direction”, claim 1 upon which claim 4 ultimately depends recites “wherein normal
movement of said auxiliary burner unit, relative to said cart, is restricted by said
guide structure to substantially linear movement.” The examiner has found that
Reynolds, item A, meets the claimed auxiliary burner housing unit and that
Reynolds’ guide structure includes rails, items 18 and 19. See page 4 of the
answer. We find that Reynolds teaches that the rails, items 18 and 19, are linear
and limit the horizontal movement of the auxiliary burner to linear horizontal
movement. Accordingly, we find ample evidence to sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 4.
Rejection of claim 5.
Appellant argues on page 13 of the brief: “[a]lthough Reynolds ‘853
inferentially discloses vertical movement, of the bottom burner, based on
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007