Appeal 2006-1768
Application 10/389,327
example, to control flame form and thereby evinces that burner port size is a
result-effective variable.
Generally, it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary
skill to develop workable or even optimum ranges for such art-recognized,
result-effective parameters. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16
USPQ2d 1934, 1936-1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,
276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); Aller, 220 F.2d at 456, 105 USPQ
at 235.
From the foregoing case law and based upon Fischer’s recognition
that burner port size is a result-effective variable, it would have been
obvious to optimize or achieve a workable range of burner port areas to
control, for example, flame form.
We note that Appellants’ claim requires that the “total area of the
main ports” in the external surface of the burner is “at least 1 square inch per
million (MM) Btu/hr burner capacity.” In this regard, Appellants disclose in
paragraph [0032] of their Specification that a conventional burner port area
is 5.8 in2 for a burner capacity of 6.0 million Btu/hr. Dividing the burner
port area by the burner capacity, we calculate a burner port area of .966 in2
per (MM) Btu/hr. Therefore, Appellants implicitly admit that about .97 in2
per (MM) Btu/hr is a conventional burner port area.
Generally, to establish a prima facie case of obviousness under § 103,
there must be some teaching, suggestion, and/or motivation in the applied
prior art taken as a whole and/or knowledge generally available to a person
having ordinary skill in the art, which would have led that person to the
claimed invention, without any recourse to the teachings in an applicant’s
disclosure. See e.g., Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007