Appeal No. 2006-1678
Application No. 10/677,869
shown on page 25 of Exhibit A and Figure 2 of Fuller, both of
which comprise a combustion chamber, nozzle, and powder
injector.
Appellants' Reply Brief makes no mention of the comparison
of figures drawn by the examiner, but, rather, contends that
element 32 of Fuller is merely an air heater and not a
combustion chamber, as set forth by the examiner. Appellants
emphasize that element 32 is simply an air heater which has a
common purpose inherent to kinetic spray processes of heating
the air or other gas, and that "there is no combustion that
takes place" (page 3 of Reply Brief, first paragraph). However,
as accurately pointed out by the examiner, Fuller expressly
discloses that air heater 32 "may include a combustion chamber"
(column 7, lines 29-30). Consequently, inasmuch as appellants
have not established any structural or functional distinction
between the apparatus of Fuller's Figure 2 and apparatus capable
of performing High Velocity Oxy-Fuel combustion thermal spray
processes within the scope of the appealed claims, the
examiner's finding that Fuller describes the claimed invention
within the meaning of § 102 stands unrebutted.
Turning to the examiner's § 103 rejection over Brogan, the
sole argument advanced by appellants is that "Brogan is not
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007