Appeal Number 2006-2869
Application No. 10/385,520
overcome the negative effects of a reverse density driven
flow and enhance oven cavity size. This is particularly true
given that none of the art of record even remotely addresses
the problem solved by the invention.
With respect to the examiner’s reliance on In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, appellants argue (brief,
page 8) that
In Aller, the prior art showed essentially the same process as
that recited in the claims, and the art suggested the possibility of
changing parameters of that process, i.e., a motivation
existed. In contrast, the prior art relied upon by the Examiner
does not even recognize the problem addressed by the inventors
of the present application, let alone suggest any of the claimed
range limitations.
From our review of the record, we find, for the reasons which follow, that the teachings
and suggestions of Perry would not have suggested to an artisan the invention set forth in claims
1-14. At the outset, we note the disclosure in appellants’ specification (page 2) that
conventionally, oven cavities are designed with a considerable amount of space allocated for the
gas burner assembly, and that specifically, a conventional gas burner assembly is designed such
that a vertical distance of at least 3 inches separates the inlet portion from the outlet portion.
This distance requirement has been seen as necessary to avoid the negative effects associated
with a reverse density driven flow which occurs when the cooking appliance is hot and gas flow
to the burner is off. It is further disclosed (specification, page 3) that “[p]articularly, there exists
a need for a low profile gas burner assembly having an inlet portion and an outlet position
separated by a distance less than the conventional 3 inches (7.62 cm) that does not suffer from
the effects of a reverse density driven flow.” As disclosed on pages 3 and 8 of the specification,
for a tubing diameter of .75 inches, vertical spacing of .75 inch to about 2.5 inches, which is
about 1 to 3.33 times the tubing diameter, provides a low profile burner arrangement which
avoids reverse driven energy flow.
From the disclosure, we do not agree with the examiner (answer, page 6) that appellants
have failed to satisfy their burden of establishing that such a problem exists. In our view, from
appellants’ disclosure (which was filed under oath or declaration) that the conventional wisdom
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007