Appeal 2007-3496
Application 10/344,472
the same flame” the presence of which is detected by optical monitoring
means 30 (id.).
Appellants contend the Examiner’s interpretation of de Haan and thus
that the optical monitor determines when the flame sweeps over the ignition
electrode is not supported by the disclosure in the reference (Br. 7-8)
Appellants contend optical fiber 13 is connected to a receiver and transducer
which measure the intensity of the flame during operation of the burner, and
ignition electrode 8 detects flame generated in tubular element 6, which is
disclosed to provide separate control of the flame in the tubular element and
the flame in the burner (id., citing de Haan col. 3, ll. 6-19 and 65-68; see
also Reply Br. 1-2). Appellants contend it can be seen in
de Haan Fig. 2 that “when a pilot flame is present inside the tubular element
6, the flame would not appear to be detected by the infrared detector 30,
which is located outside the tubular element 6,” and “if the main flame is
ignited by the pilot flame, and the pilot flame goes out, the infrared detector
30 would not appear to be able to detect this” (id. 8). Appellants contend de
Haan “teaches that a small flame is first generated in the tubular element and
is monitored and controlled by the ionization electrode,” and “[t]hen, the
small flame generates the main flame outside the tubular element, and it is
this main flame that is monitored by the optical monitoring means (30)” (id.
8-9, citing de Haan col. 4, ll. 37-56).
We find de Haan would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this
art burner 1 for start-up operations in which, for example, it is “used for
ignition of a main burner operating on, for example, pulverized coal” in
combustion chamber 5, wherein the burner is provided with an ignition
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013