Appeal No. 2006-0376
Application No. 09/971,866
Rejection of claim 9.
On page 15 of the brief, appellant argues with respect to claim 9
“[a]lthough Reynolds ‘853 and Harneit ‘272 disclose horizontal movement of an
auxiliary burner, the combination used in the claimed invention substantially
departs from Reynolds ‘853 and Harriet ‘272 disclosures.”
Claim 9 is ultimately dependent upon claim 7 and contains the limitation
“wherein the auxiliary burner housing is movable in a horizontal direction.” As
stated supra we find that Reynolds teaches the limitations of claim 7. Further, we
find that the limitations of claim 9 are similar to those of claim 4 which we also
find are taught by Reynolds. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claim 9 for the reasons stated supra with respect to claims 7 and 4.
Rejection of claim 10.
On page 16 of the brief appellant argues, with respect to claim 10, that he
combination of Reynolds and Harneit does not disclose the structure of claim 10
where the auxiliary burner is guided by at least one rail to substantially linear
movement in the vertical direction.
We are not persuaded. Claim 10 is ultimately dependent upon claim 7
and contains the limitation “wherein the auxiliary burner housing is movable in a
horizontal direction.” As stated supra, we find that Reynolds teaches the
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007