Appeal No. 1997-0091 Page 7
Application No. 08/115,530
table. However, these limitations are not suggested by the
applied prior art. In that regard, none of the applied prior
art teaches or suggests an air processing module which is
arranged in a housing which adjoins an entrance side of the
housing of the vapor-removal drier and extends over and above
the pouring table. To supply this omission in the teachings
of the applied prior art, the examiner made a determination
(answer, pp. 4-10) that this difference would have been
obvious to an artisan since the location of the air processing
module would have been an obvious choice of engineering
design. However, this determination has not been supported by
any evidence that would have led an artisan to arrive at the
claimed invention. In that regard, the examiner has not
applied any evidence that would have made it obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill
in the art to have arranged the air processing module in a
housing which adjoins an entrance side of the housing of the
vapor-removal drier and extends over and above the pouring
table.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007