Appeal No. 95-4314 Page 5
Application No. 07/963,524
supported by evidence, as shown by some objective teaching in
the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art that would have led that individual
to combine the relevant teachings of the references to arrive
at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074,
5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Rejections based on §
103 must rest on a factual basis with these facts being
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art.
Appellants argue (brief, page 10) that the subject matter
defined by method claim 13 cannot be found in the applied
references. We agree.
In particular, claim 13 is drawn to a method for producing
the refractory bottom lining for a ladle that enumerates the
following combination of steps for which the examiner has not
furnished a prior art evidentiary basis for establishing the
obviousness thereof: (1) producing a mold with a specified
bottom curvature corresponding to the curvature of the surface
of a ladle bottom lining and including compartments shaped to
correspond to the geometry of elements of the bottom lining;
(2) pouring refractory concrete into each of the compartments
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007