Appeal 2006-1768
Application 10/389,327
in the burner art, we are similarly unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments for
the reasons discussed above.
We affirm the § 103(a) rejection over Dinicolantonio.
§ 103(a) REJECTION OVER DINICOLANTONIO IN VIEW OF NEWBY
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 11 over Dinicolantonio in view of
Newby (Answer 6). The Examiner stated that Dinicolantonio fails to teach a
flat flame burner (Answer 6). Newby was cited to teach a flat flame burner
to reduce NOx emissions (Answer 6). The Examiner concluded that it
would have been obvious to combine Newby’s flat flame burner with
Dinicolantonio’s burner in order to reduce NOx emissions (Answer 6).
Appellants argue that Newby does not cure the deficiencies (i.e., the
total main port area being at least 1.0 in2 per (MM) Btu/hr) of the
Dinicolantonio reference (Br. 15). Appellants also argue that “there is
nothing to suggest that it would be desirable to modify the teachings of
Dinicolantonio by the teachings of Newby” (i.e., lack of motivation to
combine) (Br. 15).
The Examiner responds that Dinicolantonio does not have the
deficiency (i.e., total main port area) that would require Newby to remedy
such deficiency (Answer 10). Moreover, the Examiner states that
motivation for the combination is clearly delineated in the Newby reference
(i.e., reduce NOx emissions) (Answer 11).
We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate determination that claims 3
and 11 are unpatentable over Dinicolantonio in view of Newby.
Newby is applied by the Examiner for his teaching of using a flat-
flame burner (Answer 6), not for using burner port holes having the claimed
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007