Appeal No. 95-1724
Application No. 08/011,604
that the apparatus defined by appealed claim 1 is
distinguishable over the Heuer apparatus.
For the reasons previously indicated, the fact that
appellant’s baffle means and patentee’s thicker refractory
portion may be used for different purposes is not germane to
the issue of patentability which is before us on this appeal.
What is germane is the fact that the baffle means and thicker
refractory portion are structurally indistinguishable.
Moreover, we cannot agree with the appellant’s position
that the location of his claim 1 baffle means distinguishes
over the location of Heuer’s thicker refractory portion. We
here reiterate the examiner’s point that the appealed claims
do not require a spinning nozzle assembly. Instead, the
independent claim on appeal simply recites that the claimed
chamber is “adapted for the positioning of a spinning nozzle
assembly therein” and that the claimed refractory baffle means
is positioned “so as to be located under a rotor portion of
said spinning nozzle assembly upon placement of said spinning
nozzle assembly in the refining chamber for the injection of
sparging gas into the body of molten aluminum therein.”
Plainly, the chamber of Heuer’s apparatus is “adapted” for the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007