Appeal 2007-0200
Application 10/445,466
selectively blown through only either the main nozzles or the auxiliary
nozzles to the exclusion of the other nozzles. Rather, removable plugs can
be inserted within the main nozzles 36' or auxiliary nozzles 38' to selectively
prevent gas flow therethrough (Watkins, col. 12, ll. 37-43).
Watkins touts as an advantage that
in the deskulling operation using the single circuit
design, oxygen gas is only blown through the
auxiliary nozzles, the main nozzles being plugged.
During deskulling with the double circuit lance
design, oxygen gas is blown from the auxiliary
nozzles and an inert gas is blown from the main
nozzles. Thus, in both the single and double
circuit lance designs, due to blowing inert gas or
plugging the main nozzles, the main nozzles are
not clogged with skull and the furnace walls are
not damaged.
(Watkins, col. 4, ll. 27-36.)
We find nothing in Appellants' claims or Specification that defines
"deskulling nozzles" as nozzles having the capability of having oxygen-
containing gas blown therethrough to melt skull, much less as nozzles
through which oxygen-containing gas is in fact blown to melt skull. As
evidenced by the above findings, both the main and auxiliary nozzles of
Watkins are used in deskulling and are thus "deskulling nozzles" as claimed.
Appellants argue that the small angle of divergence of the main
nozzles from the lance longitudinal axis renders them incapable of
functioning as deskulling nozzles or, stated differently, of melting skull from
the refractory walls (Appeal Br. 12 and 13). Appellants have not provided
evidence that this is the case, however.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013