Appeal 2007-0200
Application 10/445,466
It is apparent from the above findings with respect to Watkins that,
with both the double circuit and single circuit embodiments, during the
deskulling operation, oxygen gas can selectively be either (1) blown out of
both the main and auxiliary nozzles or (2) by closing selected control valves
in the double circuit embodiment or selectively plugging either the main
nozzles or the auxiliary nozzles, blown out of only the auxiliary nozzles or
out of only the main nozzles. Moreover, in pointing out that, 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 at least implies
that, were the main nozzles not plugged or otherwise prevented from
blowing oxygen gas therethrough during deskulling, damage to the furnace
walls could result. This teaching, read against the background of recognition
by Watkins that combustion of high velocity oxygen gas in the furnace is a
cause of deterioration of refractory walls, gives some indication that oxygen
blown from the main nozzles could potentially have localized combustion
effects near the refractory walls that could both melt skull, if present, and
damage the walls. Accordingly, we find sufficient factual basis in Watkins
to reasonably support the Examiner's position that the main nozzles of
Watkins are capable of functioning as deskulling nozzles so as to shift the
burden to Appellants to prove that they do not possess such capability. See
In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(Once the USPTO establishes a prima facie case of anticipation based on
inherency, the burden shifts to appellant to prove that the prior art does not
possess the characteristic at issue.)
In light of the above, even accepting the premise implied by
Appellants' argument that a "deskulling nozzle" must be capable of having
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013