Appeal No. 2006-0376
Application No. 09/971,866
examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 14.
Rejection of claim 13
On page 17 of the brief, appellant argues that claim 13 is similar in scope
to claim 1 and includes the requirements that the auxiliary burner is height
adjustable and is movable between a raised and lower position.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s arguments concerning claim 13, as
stated supra we find that Reynolds teaches the device of claim 1 and that
Reynolds teaches that the auxiliary burner is movable linearly, in the vertical
direction. We consider movement in the vertical direction to meet the claimed
raising or lowering the auxiliary burner housing. Accordingly, we find ample
evidence to support the examiner’s rejection of claim 13.
Rejection of claim 16.
Appellant argues on page 18 of the brief that claim 16 is similar in scope
to claim 13 and includes the limitation of a spring loaded latch for temporarily and
disengagably fixing the position of the auxiliary burner.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s arguments concerning claim 16, as
stated supra we find that Reynolds teaches the device of claim 13. Further, as
discussed with respect to claim 6 we find that Reynolds teaches the claimed
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007