Appeal 2006-1768
Application 10/389,327
motivation for the combination is clearly delineated in the Johnson reference
(i.e., reduction in NOx emissions) (Answer 11).
We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate determination that claims 11-
13 and 21-23 are unpatentable over Dinicolantonio in view of Johnson.
Johnson is applied by the Examiner for his teaching of using steam
injection in a burner (Answer 6-7), not for using burner port holes having the
claimed area. Moreover, motivation of the combination of Johnson’s steam
injection with Dinicolantonio’s burner assembly is provided by Johnson, that
is, to reduce NOx emissions (Johnson col. 1, ll. 53-58).
We affirm the § 103(a) rejection over Dinicolantonio in view of
Johnson.
§ 103(a) REJECTION OVER DINICOLANTONIO IN VIEW OF
FERGUSON
The Examiner rejected claims 11-13 and 21-23 over Dinicolantonio in
view of Ferguson. The Examiner stated that Dinicolantonio teaches
“substantially all of the claimed limitations, but fails to specifically require
adding steam to the burner” (Answer 7). The Examiner found that Ferguson
teaches adding steam to a burner to facilitate the drawing of flue gases
through an opening and the flue gas recirculation passageway (Answer 7).
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to have combined
Ferguson’s steam injection into Dinicolantonio burner in order to “provide
for heating and atomizing fuel” (Answer 7).
Appellants argue that Ferguson does not cure the deficiencies (i.e., the
total main port area being at least 1.0 in2 per (MM) Btu/hr) of the
15
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007