Appeal No. 20006-1116
Application No. 10/450,439
permit easy fabrication” and provides finer droplets. See column
1, lines 45-52 and column 4, lines 43-46. We find that Suzuki
teaches additional advantages of using its atomizer over a
conventional atomizer at column 2, line 63 to column 3, lines 43.
Given the above teachings, we concur with the examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to employ
the impingement atomizer of the type discussed in Suzuki, in lieu
of the conventional single-fluid nozzles, in the admittedly known
process for cooling a hot gas mixture containing (meth)acrylic
acid, motivated by a reasonable expectation of successfully
obtaining the advantages enumerated in Suzuki2.
The appellants argue that Suzuki is directed to using its
impingement atomizer to minimize an internal clogging problem
associated with a single hole atomizer, rather than to prevent
the external clogging problem caused by the formation of polymer
discussed in the appellants’ specification. See the Brief, pages
5-8 and the Reply Brief, pages 1-3. As such, “[t]here is no
2 At best, Wu is cumulative to Suzuki and thus, it need not
be discussed in this decision.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007