Ex Parte DAVIS, JR. - Page 3

          Appeal No. 1998-0838                                                        
          Application No. 08/265,858                                                  

          independent claim 1 on appeal its broadest reasonable                       
          interpretation and found that it is readable on the closed loop             
          sluice water system in Hibbel which transports slag from the                
          separating chamber (43) and lock vessel (6) in a water/slag                 
          mixture into the collecting vessel or sump pit (22).  Appellant             
          has pointed to nothing in the claims on appeal (particularly,               
          independent claim 1) which in any way changes our views as set              
          forth on pages 5 through 10 of our earlier decision.                        

          The fact that appellant’s invention as disclosed may be a                   
          substitute for the mechanical device (49) of Hibbel and that the            
          system or process in Hibbel may be an appropriate process                   
          precursor to appellant’s process, is of no avail, since the                 
          claims before us on appeal (specifically independent claim 1) do            
          not include any limitations which make or require any such                  
          distinctions in the claimed subject matter.  For that reason, we            
          remain of the view expressed in our earlier decision concerning             
          the obviousness of the subject matter set forth in appellant’s              
          claims on appeal.                                                           


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007