Appeal 2007-0074
Application 10/758,381
As for the separately argued claims, and the rejection of claims 18 and
25 over the further disclosure of Nakagawa, we will not burden the record
with additional comments but rely upon the rationale expressed in the
Examiner’s Answer. Suffice it to say that we agree with the Examiner that
controlling the ratio of fuel to oxygen is tantamount to controlling the flow
rates of these gases. We find no merit in Appellants’ argument that the fuel
and oxygen ratio discussed by Knight “is a very different parameter than a
separately measured ‘flow rate of fuel’ and ‘flow rate of oxidizer’, separate
variables that are absolute flow rates, not ratios” (Reply Br. 6, ¶ 1).
Manifestly, controlling the ratio of flow rates requires controlling the rates
of each gas expressed in the ratio. As for Appellants’ argument that
“[n]either reference ever describes the structural details of its deposition
device” (Br. 9, last ¶ ), Appellants acknowledge that deposition devices
within the scope of the appealed claims were known in the art, as stated by
Moore and evidenced by Knight.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007