Appeal 2006-1768
Application 10/389,327
The rejections as presented by the Examiner are as follows:
1. Claims 1-12 and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fischer.
2. Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 14-20, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Dinicolantonio.
3. Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Dinicolantonio in view of Newby.
4. Claims 11-13 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dinicolantonio in view of Johnson.
5. Claims 11-13 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dinicolantonio in view of Ferguson.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the
Appellants and by the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the
Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer respectively for a complete
exposition thereof.
OPINION
Appellants do not argue the burner and the method of combusting
claims separately. Rather, Appellants focus on the structural limitations that
are commonly recited in each set of claims. Accordingly, we choose burner
claim 1 as a representative claim on which to render our decision.
SECTION 103(a) REJECTION OVER FISCHER
The feature of claim 1 that is the point of contention between the
Examiner and Appellants is “a burner tip mounted on the downstream end of
said burner tube and adjacent a first opening in the furnace,” the burner tip
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007