Appeal No. 95-2647
Application 08/068,105
motivation to employ the groove structure of Russo <131 in the gate of Shapland et al would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made” (answer: pp. 3-4). While we
agree with the examiner that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by Russo
to modify Shapland by adding a “groove” on the fixed element of Shapland to reduce air infiltration, the
examiner has not explained how and why such a person would have been led to form the “groove” between
Shapland’s base plate 18 and plate member 112 as required by appellants’ claims. Moreover, in Russo,
the supply groove is not formed on the sliding gate plate, but is formed on the fixed plate (col. 1, lines 43-
52). The examiner has not explained why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been led by
the teachings of Shapland and/or Russo to locate the “groove” on the surface of the sliding gate as opposed
to the fixed element of the valve. The examiner’s argument that “[t]here is no requirement in the claims that
the plate [claimed] be a movable plate of the sliding gate valve ...” (answer: pp. 5-6) is without merit since
appellants’ claims are specifically directed to a “refractory slide-gate plate” which has the inert gas supply
groove on the surface thereof (emphasis added).
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007