Appeal No. 95-1724
Application No. 08/011,604
positioning of an assembly at charging opening 24 as evinced
by a comparison of Figures 1 and 6. That is, an assembly such
as a spinning nozzle assembly is capable of being positioned
at this charging opening. Further, the location of patentee’s
thicker refractory portion is explicitly shown to be under
this charging opening and therefore corresponds to the
location defined by appealed claim 1.
For the above stated reasons, it is our determination
that the independent claim on appeal fails to structurally
distinguish the chamber defined thereby from the chamber
disclosed by Heuer notwithstanding the appellants’ arguments
to the contrary.
We also are unconvinced by the appellant’s arguments that
dependent claims 4, 5, 7 and 8 are patentable over Heuer. In
our view, it would have been obvious for one with ordinary
skill in the art to provide patentee’s thicker refractory
portion with height dimensions within the ranges defined by
dependent claims 4 and 5, for example, in order to militate
against the greater wear and tear to which this portion of the
refractory lining is subjected. As for claims 7 and 8, the
distance between the baffle means and rotor which is defined
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007