Appeal No. 95-4615
Application No. 08/158,853
examiner then appears to conclude that it would have been
obvious to use the structure (keyways and key) proposed by the
Beckman reference in the furnace roof described by the Hawke
reference.
The examiner, however, has not supplied sufficient facts
for concluding that one of ordinary skill in the art would
look to the structure associated with concrete units to
improve the structure associated with refractory furnace
roofs. In this regard, we note that the examiner has not
established that the furnace roof of the type described in the
Hawke reference has the same or similar characteristics, e.g.,
suffers from the same or similar joining problems, as the
concrete units of the type described in the Beckman reference.
There is no evidence establishing the need for the shear link
structure of the concrete units described in the Beckman
reference in the furnace roof of the type described in the
Hawke reference. Absent the appellant’s own disclosure, we
can think of no reason why one of ordinary skill in this art
would have been motivated to combine the diverse teachings of
the Hawke and Beckman references as the examiner has proposed.
As the court in Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007