Appeal No. 95-1724
Application No. 08/011,604
by these claims is determined by the lengthwise positioning of
the spinning nozzle assembly after it is placed in the here
claimed chamber. Concerning this matter, it is appropriate to
reiterate the earlier mentioned point that the appealed claims
do not require the chamber to include the spinning nozzle
assembly. It follows that the distance feature of the claims
under review relates to a future intended placement of the
assembly. With this in mind, we re-emphasize our earlier
observation that Heuer’s chamber is “adapted” for the
positioning of an assembly at the charging opening thereof,
and such positioning would enable the lengthwise disposition
of the assembly to be located at the here claimed distance
from patentee’s raised refractory portion.
In light of the foregoing, we will sustain the examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 8 and 15 as being
unpatentable over Heuer.
However, we cannot sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claim 16 (which requires the baffle means to be of an
“essentially triangular cross section”) as being unpatentable
over Heuer in view of Ivanov. The examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to provide Heuer with a triangular
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007