Appeal No. 2006-0376
Application No. 09/971,866
horizontal movement of a carriage and attached inclined lift bar to which a bottom
burner is attached, the vertical movement of the auxiliary burner of the claimed
invention, associated with a guide structure, is not the same as disclosed by
Reynolds ‘853.”
We disagree with appellant’s characterization of Reynolds. Claim 5
includes the limitation “wherein the auxiliary burner housing is movable in a
vertical 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 teaches that the auxiliary burner is mounted to be vertically
and horizontally adjustable. We concur with the examiner. Further, we do not
find that the vertical adjustment is based upon horizontal movement of the
carriage. We find that Reynolds teaches the auxiliary burner is guided in the
vertical direction by lift arms, item E, and held in place by detent means, item K.
See figures 1 and 4. Reynolds’ figure 1 depicts the movement of the auxiliary
burner as being linear. See vertical arrow bisecting G2 and B2. Further, we find
no limitation in claim 5 or the claims upon which it depends which differentiate
Reynolds’ guide from the claimed guide. Accordingly, we find ample evidence to
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 5.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007