Ex Parte Barnes et al - Page 4




               Appeal Number 2006-2869                                                                                                
               Application No. 10/385,520                                                                                             
               1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785,                           
               788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA                                 
               1976).                                                                                                                 
                       The examiner's position (answer, page 5) is that                                                               
                       Perry does not specifically recite the claimed ranges                                                          
                               and proportions for the intermediate portion. However,                                                 
                               it should be noted that the only mention vaguely                                                       
                               resembling any criticality for the claimed ranges                                                      
                               and proportions in the entire disclosure is a single                                                   
                               sentence that states that the disclosed arrangement                                                    
                               minimizes the height of the burner in order to enhance                                                 
                               the size of the oven cavity. There appears to be no                                                    
                               mention of any criticality for the specific ranges and                                                 
                               proportions recited in the claims. As such, these                                                      
                               limitations are simply design modifications based on                                                   
                               spatial considerations and have no apparent criticality.                                               
                      The examiner adds (answer, pages 5 and 6) that                                                                 
                               It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill                                                
                               in the art at the time the invention was made to have                                                  
                               incorporated the claimed range into the invention                                                      
                               disclosed by Perry, since it has been held that where the                                              
                               general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior                                               
                               art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges                                                        
                               involves only routine skill in the are. In re Aller, 105                                               
                               USPQ 233; In re Swain, 156 F.2d 239.                                                                   
               Appellants' position (brief, page 7) is that in Perry, there is no attempt to establish a low profile                  
               gas burner.  Appellants assert (brief, page 8) that “conventional wisdom would indicate that                           
               holding the intermediate or rising section to a minimal length would create problems with a                            
               reverse density driven flow and ‘popping’ of the gas inside the burner tube. The inventor’s have                       
               looked past this and developed the low profile burner of the invention.” It is argued (brief, page                     
               9) that                                                                                                                
                               There is no suggestion or motivation in Perry that would                                               
                               indicate the obviousness of providing the specifically                                                 
                               claimed vertical spaced relationship between in inlet                                                  
                               portion and the outlet portion of a gas burner assembly to                                             
                                                                  4                                                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007