Appeal No. 95-4314 Page 6
Application No. 07/963,524
and allowing the concrete to set to form the refractory bottom
lining elements; and (3) stripping the formed elements from the
mold and marking each with a reference. The examiner has not
met the initial burden to show how the subject matter defined
by claim 13 was suggested and would have been rendered obvious
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 by Coulson taken together with Cope.
Thus, we do not agree with the examiner's assertion that
"Coulson shows all aspects of the above claims except the
specific refractory lining..." (answer, page 3) for the reasons
indicated above.
In addition, we note that the examiner has not
specifically identified the evidentiary basis in the applied
prior art for several specific structural features found in the
ladle defined by claim 12, which are urged by appellants as not
having been suggested by the applied references. In
particular, appellants, via the Gehin declaration under 37
C.F.R. § 1.132 (Gehin declaration, pages 2-4), urge that the
particular claimed slope of the surface of the bottom
refractory lining relative to the tap hole location, and the
specific shape and structure of the refractory bottom lining of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007