Appeal No. 98-1563 Page 20
Application No. 08/469,198
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 15-19) that the applied
prior art fails to suggest the claimed invention. We agree.
Specifically, it is our opinion that there is no objective
teaching in the applied 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. In that
regard, there is no suggestion in the applied prior art of
providing Yokota's Figure 33 with an additional heating
furnace "arranged intermediate said pre-calcining unit and
said rotary kiln" let alone the specific heating furnace set
forth in claim 39. While an artisan could have provided a
heating furnace intermediate the pre-calcining unit and the
rotary kiln, obvious to try is not the correct standard for
patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 39 and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007