Appeal No. 20006-1116
Application No. 10/450,439
motivation to use the atomizer of Suzuki” in the admittedly known
cooling process especially since there is no recognition of the
internal clogging problem existed in the atomizer used in the
admittedly known cooling process as is apparent from the
disclosure of Schroder. See, e.g., the Reply Brief, pages 1-3.
We are not persuaded by the appellants’ argument.
As indicated supra, Suzuki provides various incentives for
employing its impingement atomizer in the admittedly known
cooling process. More importantly, Suzuki teaches that its
impingement atomizer solves the internal clogging problem and
other problems associated with use of conventional single hole
atomizers, such as those conventionally used in the admittedly
known cooling process. Thus, we concur with the examiner that
the prior art references as a whole would have motivated one of
ordinary skill in the art to employ the impingement atomizer of
the type discussed in Suzuki in the admittedly known cooling
process.
In reaching this determination, we note the appellants’
implication that the reason for using an impingement atomizer
contemplated by the appellants is not mentioned in Suzuki or the
admitted prior art3. However, the motivation to modify the
3 During the hearing, the appellants argued that the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007