Appeal No. 95-1724
Application No. 08/011,604
reference. We appreciate, of course, the appellant’s point
that his claimed chamber is used for refining aluminum whereas
the chamber of Heuer is used for the manufacture of pig iron.
However, this difference in use does not distinguish the
apparatus of appealed claim 1 from the apparatus of Heuer for
it is well settled that the manner or method in which a
machine or apparatus is to be utilized is not germane to the
issue of patentability of the machine or apparatus itself. In
re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967).
Additionally, the appellant argues that his claim 1
baffle means distinguishes over the thicker portion of Heuer’s
refractory lining 21 (e.g., see Figures 1 and 6 of the
reference drawing). In this regard, the appellant emphasizes
that his baffle means is intended to be positioned under and
to function in cooperation with a spinning nozzle assembly
whereas patentee’s thicker refractory portion is surmised to
be employed “because such portion of the lining is subject to
greater wear and tear upon the introduction of a molten charge
of pig iron onto the bottom portion of the lining at this
point” (Brief, page 4). This argument does not persuade us
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007