Appeal 2006-1768
Application 10/389,327
Dinicolantonio reference (Br. 19). Appellants also argue that Ferguson’s
steam injection point is in the flue gas recirculation duct which is
“inconsistent with Appellant’s claimed invention” (Br. 18). Appellants
further argue lack of motivation for combining Ferguson’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 Ferguson to remedy
such deficiency (Answer 10). Moreover, the Examiner states that
motivation for the combination is clearly delineated in the Ferguson
reference (i.e., to heat and atomize the fuel) (Answer 11).
We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate determination that claims 11-
13 and 21-23 are unpatentable over Dinicolantonio in view of Ferguson.
Ferguson is applied by the Examiner for his teaching of using steam
injection in a burner (Answer 7), not for using burner port holes having the
claimed area. Moreover, motivation for the combination of Ferguson’s
steam injection with Dinicolantonio’s burner assembly is provided by
Ferguson, that is, to atomize the fuel and drawing gases into the burner
(Ferguson col. 1, ll. 41-47).
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Ferguson’s steam
injection location is inconsistent with the claims. Claims 11-13 require that
the “steam tubes” terminate “adjacent the upstream end of said burner tube
for introducing steam into said burner tube.” In examining Ferguson’s
Figure 2, we find that steam jet 48 is “adjacent” to the burner head 39.
Moreover, we find that in order for the steam to perform its atomizing
function for the fuel, the steam jet 48 would need to be located in relative
proximity (i.e., “adjacent”) to the burner port 39.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007