Appeal No. 96-2680
Application No. 08/258,788
obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejection.
Grant discloses an insulating cover for a torpedo car
similar to the one presently claimed. For instance, the cover of
Grant comprises an insulating layer positioned between upper and
lower mesh layers. The cover of Grant does not have the claimed
ferromagnetic plate. Rather, Grant employs a metallic lattice 39
as a gripping means for holding and placement of the cover by
workmen. Recognizing this deficiency of Grant with respect to
the appealed claims, the examiner cites either Schnabel or Evans
for evidence that "in metallurgical plants it is old and well
known to employ electromagnets to accurately and efficiently
place objects with ferromagnetic components" (page 3 of Answer).
Based on this prior art evidence, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to
employ flat, ferromagnetic plates in place of the metallic
lattice of Grant so that electromagnets could replace manual
labor for positioning and removing insulating covers.
In view of the long-held knowledge in the art of using
electromagnets to move and position ferromagnetic components in
industry, we appreciate that the examiner's underlying reasoning
has a certain intuitive appeal. However, upon thorough scrutiny
of the present record, we find that there is insufficient factual
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007