Appeal 2007-0285
Application 10/064,808
Concerning the separately argued independent and dependent claims,
we concur with the rationale set forth by the Examiner in the Answer.
Suffice it to say that we find that the Examiner has established the prima
facie obviousness of utilizing the control sensor of JP ‘419 to monitor the
temperature, the invasive and non-invasive temperature sensors of the
admitted prior art, the pressurized housing of EP ‘368, and providing oxidant
flow via any piping or ducts (Gillett, col. 5, ll. 51-65) and thermal insulation
(Gillett, col. 7, ll. 7-14).
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by the
Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007