Ex parte FISH - Page 3




          Appeal No. 95-4615                                                          
          Application No. 08/158,853                                                  


          20.  A furnace lid, comprising:                                             
               a center panel block; and                                              
               side panels surrounding the center panel block, each side              
          panel including a skewback and a plurality of blocks extending              
          from the skewback to said center panel block, said center                   
          panel block and skewbacks having a step portion and said                    
          plurality of blocks having spaced apart step portions, wherein              
          in assembly, the step portions mutually engage, so that the                 
          center panel block and side panels form a substantially arch                
          shape.                                                                      
               As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the                 
          following references:                                                       
          Hawke                         1,524,033                Jan. 27,             
          1925                                                                        
          Beckman et al. (Beckman)           3,434,263                Mar.            
          25. 1969                                                                    
               Claims 1 through 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103               
          as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Hawke and                    
          Beckman.                                                                    
               We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including                
          all of the arguments advanced by the examiner and appellant in              
          support of their respective positions.  This review leads us                
          to conclude that the examiner’s § 103 rejection is not well                 
          founded.  We will not sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection                
          for essentially those reasons set forth in the Brief.  We add               
          the following primarily for emphasis.                                       

                                          3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007