Ex Parte Scott

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 29, 2009

10275428 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte FRANKLIN SCOTT
____________

Appeal 2008-2585
Application 10/275,428
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: January 29, 2009
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE III, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, and
JENNIFER D. BAHR, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILLIAM F. PATE III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-26. These are
the only claims in the application.
We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134.
Appeal 2008-2585
Application 10/275,428

2
The claimed subject matter is directed to a burner including a fuel
reservoir with a primary and secondary combustion zone and a passage
therebetween and also including a flue for discharging products of
combustion from the secondary combustion zone. The invention is further
characterized in that the minimum cross-sectional flow area of the flue
combined with the cross-sectional area of the passage is substantially equal
to the cross-sectional flow areas of the air supply holes in the peripheral wall
of the burner chamber.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A burner, comprising:
a fuel reservoir having a primary combustion zone, a
secondary combustion zone and a passage providing
communication between the primary and secondary combustion
zones, the fuel reservoir having a peripheral wall enclosing at
least a portion of the primary combustion zone, the peripheral
wall including at least one hole for providing combustion air to
the primary combustion zone; and
a flue for discharging products of combustion from the
secondary combustion zone, a minimum cross-sectional flow
area of the flue combined with a cross-sectional area of the
passage being substantially equal to a combined cross-sectional
flow area of the holes in the peripheral wall.
REFERENCES
The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Spaulding 4,213,404 Jul. 22, 1980
Carpaneto 4,461,243 Jul. 24, 1984
Appeal 2008-2585
Application 10/275,428

3

Zimmermann 4,607,610 Aug. 26, 1986
Goldstein 5,713,154 Feb. 03, 1998

Cremasco AU-B-80319/82 Nov. 11, 1982
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-10 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Spaulding.
Claims 11-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Spaulding in view of Zimmerman.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Spaulding in view of Carpaneto.
Claims 19-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Spaulding in view of Cremasco.
Claims 25-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Spaulding in view of Goldstein.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in light of the
arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner. As a result of this review, we
have determined that the applied prior art does not establish the prima facie
obviousness of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the rejection of all claims
on appeal is reversed. Our reasons follow.
The following constitutes our Findings of Fact with respect to the
applied prior art. Spaulding discloses a burner comprising a fuel reservoir
and a primary combustion zone in upper chamber 3 and a secondary
combustion zone in lower chamber 22. A passage or opening 14 is provided
Appeal 2008-2585
Application 10/275,428

4
for establishing communication between the primary and secondary
combustion zones. The primary combustion zone has a peripheral wall with
at least one hole (note peripheral band of holes 36) for providing combustion
air to the primary combustion zone. Finally, Spaulding provides a flue with
an outlet (series of openings 64) from the secondary combustion zone into
side opening 66 which opens into the primary heat exchanger 62. The
Spaulding burner operates under microprocessor control. That is to say that
air flow control valves 50, 52 and 54 control the amount of air supplied to
air holes 36 and 34 and control the back pressure in the flue via blower 78.
The Examiner admits that Spaulding does not disclose that the
combined cross-sectional area of the air holes 36 is substantially equal to the
combined minimum cross-sectional area of the passage 14 and the minimum
cross-sectional area of the flue either at openings 64 or side opening 66.
However, the Examiner contends that this exact area relationship is no more
than an optimum value that can be determined through routine
experimentation. We agree that optimum values are often amenable to
routine experimentation as the jurisprudence so suggests. However, the
recognition that the values themselves are amenable to routine
experimentation is part of the invention as a whole. In this case, it is clear
that Spaulding is interested in varying the mass flow rates of the gases
through the flue, the passage and the air supply holes 36. He varies these
mass flow rates by the provision of dampers and a blower controlled by the
microprocessor. See Spaulding, col. 6, l. 41-col. 7, l. 4. Absent from
Spaulding is the recognition that area, i.e., cross-sectional area of the
passage, the flue and the air holes and their relationship to one another is
Appeal 2008-2585
Application 10/275,428

5
important for assuring optimum performance. Spaulding is silent with
respect to the area of these three choke points in the furnance of Spaulding.
Accordingly, it is our view that Spaulding would not have taught one of
ordinary skill that optimization of the cross-sectional area was, in fact, a
result effective variable and that a specific relationship, that of equality, is
important for an optimized system. This is especially so when Spaulding
does not vary the cross-sectional area of the flue but merely provides a
suction blower 78 to vary the mass flow rate of combustion products to the
flue portion of the burner.
We have further considered the other prior art as applied by the
Examiner, but we have found therein, no teaching or suggestion that would
have mitigated the absence of the disclosure of the criticality of cross-
sectional area in the Spaulding patent. Accordingly, it is our determination
that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the rejections on appeal, and all of the rejections on appeal are
reversed.
REVERSED
Vsh

HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON VA 20195