Appeal No. 95-2647
Application 08/068,105
appellants’ specification, we interpret this to mean that a groove is formed at the peripheral portion of the
recessed portion of base plate 11 forming the ring and that the groove is formed between the peripheral
portion of the recessed portion of base plate 11 and the plate member 13. Claim 1 further defines the inert
gas supply groove for supplying inert gas into the nozzle hole as being on the slide surface of the refractory
slide gate plate. We interpret this as meaning that the groove is located on the surface of the plate which
faces a fixed portion of the slide gate device.
The examiner rejected claim 1, inter alia, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combined teachings
of Shapland and Russo. According to the examiner, Shapland shows a slide-gate device comprising, inter
alia, a refractory ring shaped base plate 18, a refractory plate member 112, and an inert gas supply5
“groove” formed therebetween, presumably narrow closed passage 174 between base plate 18 and plate
member 112 through which an inert gas can be passed. We find that Shapland’s narrow passage 174 is
not a groove on the surface of the element defined by base plate 18 and plate member 112 as required by
appellants’ claim 1.
The examiner relies on Russo as teaching that “in order to advantageously prevent infiltration of air
into the orifices of slide gate plates it is known to provide a groove reaching the sliding surface of the slide
gate plate connected to a non-oxidizing gas source and surrounding the orifice” (answer: p. 3). The
examiner concludes that “[b]ecause Shapland et al would also benefit from reduced oxidizing air infiltration,
The examiner relied on Fig. 1 of Shapland in his rejection. However, Fig. 1 of Shapland does not have5
reference numeral 112. Fig. 2 of Shapland appears to be more appropriate for identifying the elements identified by the
examiner.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007