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.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007