Appeal 2006-1768
Application 10/389,327
dynamics: “varying velocity or volume of flow will affect the fluid’s ability
to draw other fluids” (Answer 9).
Regarding Appellants’ allegation of unexpected results, the Examiner
finds that Appellants failed to provide any evidence to support their
allegation (Answer 9). The Examiner finds that the single sentence in
paragraph 33 of the Specification is “simply insufficient to satisfy
[A]ppellants’ burden of proof” (Answer 9).
Moreover, the Examiner finds Appellants’ statement in the
Specification (i.e., “intuitively” tip velocity would decrease with an increase
in burner port area) is incorrect (Answer 9). The Examiner states that many
variables affect burner design and Appellants’ statement regarding the
relationship of tip area-to-tip velocity is an unsupported conclusion (Answer
9). The Examiner further determines that well known fluid dynamic
principles indicate that increasing the volume of fluid flowing through a
cross-sectional area in response to an increase in the cross-sectional area
maintains a constant velocity and increases the induction capability of the
fluid (i.e., the ability to draw other fluids) (Answer 10).
Regarding the reasonable expectation of success arguments, the
Examiner contends that Fischer shows variation in both nozzles and ports in
Figures 4-7 and venturi throat length in Figures 5, 7, and 8 (Answer 10).
Moreover, the Examiner states that modification of various factors affecting
fluid flow is “well known if not inherent in the art” (Answer 10). Based on
this, the Examiner concludes that the variables affecting fluid flow would be
known and thereby readily optimizable in accordance with the Aller decision
(Answer 10).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007