Appeal 2006-1768
Application 10/389,327
area. Moreover, motivation for the combination of Newby’s flat flame
burner with Dinicolantonio’s burner assembly is provided by Newby, that is,
to reduce NOx emissions (Newby col. 1, ll. 48-51).
We affirm the § 103(a) rejection over Dinicolantonio in view of
Newby.
§ 103(a) REJECTION OVER DINICOLANTONIO IN VIEW OF
JOHNSON
The Examiner rejected claims 11-13 and 21-23 over Dinicolantonio in
view of Johnson. The Examiner stated that Dinicolantonio teaches
“substantially all of the claimed limitations, but fail[ed] to specifically
require adding steam to the burner” (Answer 6). The Examiner found that
Johnson teaches adding steam to a burner to dilute the oxygen concentration
in the burner thereby reducing NOx emissions (Answer 7). The Examiner
concluded that it would have been obvious to have combined Johnson’s
steam injection into Dinicolantonio burner in order to “reduce NOx
emissions” (Answer 7).
Appellants argue that Johnson 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. 17). Appellants also argue lack of motivation
for combining Johnson’s steam injection with Dinicolantonio’s burner
assembly (Br. 17).
The Examiner responds that Dinicolantonio does not have the
deficiency (i.e., total main port area) that would require Johnson to remedy
such deficiency (Answer 10). Moreover, the Examiner states that
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007