Appeal 2007-1461
Application 10/463,956
phrase “comprising” (FF 1) and is, therefore, open to the presence of
additional steps and structure such as additional detectors.
Kychakoff teaches the required correlation between detectors and
primary combustion regions. Kychakoff describes a method of measuring
the concentration of at least one flue gas component (particle count in a
given region) at a plurality of locations, at least two of which (e.g., 52 and
52c) are directly above, and correspond to, fuel input locations (primary
combustion regions associated with nozzles 32 and 34) (FF 6-8). The fact
that Kychakoff may include additional detectors is of no moment: those
additional detectors are not excluded by claim 17.
Appellants do not advance any sufficiently specific arguments
directed to the obviousness rejections over Kychakoff or Kychakoff in
combination with either Khinkis or Pershing which have not already been
address above.
We determine that “delta value” as that terminology is used in claim
17 encompasses what is taught by Kychakoff, and that Kychakoff further
measures at least one flue gas component (particle count) at detector
locations corresponding to the primary combustion regions as required by
claim 17.
III. CONCLUSION
Appellants have not convinced us of any reversible error in the
rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 13, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), nor of any
reversible error in the rejections of claims 3-6, 8-12, 14, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013