Appeal 2006-1768
Application 10/389,327
Claims 21-22 require a “step of injecting steam into the burner tube to
mix with the fuel and air, flue gas or mixtures thereof upstream of said zone
of combustion.” Claim 23, which depends on claim 17, only requires that
the furnace be a “steam-cracking” furnace. These method claims are silent
regarding the positioning of the steam injection port in the burner. The
recited step of “injecting steam into the burner” does not require that the
steam be “directly” injected into the burner. Indirect injection of the steam,
as in Ferguson, would suffice to meet claims 21-23.
We affirm the § 103(a) rejection over Dinicolantonio in view of
Ferguson.
CONCLUSION
We have affirmed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1-12 and 16-25
over Fischer.
We have affirmed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10, 14-20,
24 and 25 over Dinicolantonio.
We have affirmed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 3 and 11 over
Dinicolantonio in view of Newby.
We have affirmed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 11-13 and 21-23
over Dinicolantonio in view of Johnson.
We have affirmed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 11-13 and 21-23
over Dinicolantonio in view of Ferguson.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007