Ex Parte Vrolijk et al - Page 3

                Appeal 2007-3496                                                                             
                Application 10/344,472                                                                       

                      The dispositive issue is whether prima facie one of ordinary skill in                  
                this art would have found in de Haan the teachings or inferences1 that the                   
                burner apparatus containing ignition electrode 8, which can detect flame                     
                generation in tubular element 6 via ionization, and optical detector 30, which               
                monitors flame generation in the reactor, act together in determining when                   
                the combined pilot flame produced in element 6 sweeps over ignition                          
                electrode 8, as found by the Examiner (Answer 3-4 and 7-8, citing de Haan                    
                col. 2, ll. 47-64, col. 3, ll. 3-21 and 65-68, and col. 4, ll. 37-54).                       
                      The Examiner contends de Haan teaches ignition electrode 8 and                         
                optical monitor 30, coupled to optical fiber 13, “provide for control of the                 
                flame formed within tubular element (6) and outside of the burner . . . but                  
                does not explicitly provide . . . that the flame control is provided through                 
                adjusting of the mixing ratio of the gas-air mixture (Answer 4, citing de                    
                Haan col. 3, ll. 12-21).  The Examine contends that the pilot flame “ignites                 
                an additional flame in tubular element (6),” which flame is “termed both the                 
                ‘resulting flame’ . . . and later the ‘small flame’[,] . . . is distinguished from           
                the initial pilot flame,” and “serves to ignite the main burner flame” (id. 7,               
                citing de Haan col. 2, l. 64, to col. 3, l. 5, col. 4, ll. 43-46, and Fig. 3).  The          
                Examiner contends “once the main flame . . . is formed, the small or                         
                resulting flame[] and the main flame are considered to then become part of                   
                                                                                                            
                1 It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings               
                thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have               
                reasonably been expected to draw therefrom, see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d                       
                1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda,                        
                401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968), presuming skill on                         
                the part of this person.  In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774                 
                (Fed. Cir. 1985).                                                                            
                                                     3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013