Appeal No. 1997-4237
Application No. 08/665,992
adjusting said angle of tilt of said furnace to an optimal angle which provides for
minimal slag entertainment in liquid metal pouring through said tap, said
optimal angle calculated as a function of the furnace geometry and historical
data of furnace lining wear, for said amount of metal residuum.
The references relied upon by the examiner are as follows:
Tenberg et al. (Tenberg) 4,544,140 Oct. 1, 1985
Labate 4,799,650 Jan. 24, 1989
Ford et al. (Ford) 4,986,517 Jan. 22, 1991
Petrushka et al. (Petrushka) 5,203,909 Apr. 20, 1993
Claims 1-12, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. '112, paragraph 2.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ford.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 13-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as obvious over
Petrushka in view of Ford.
Claims 5, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as obvious over
Petrushka in view of Ford, and further in view of Tenberg.
Claims 9-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as obvious over Petrushka in
view of Ford, and further in view of LaBate.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we reverse each of the above-noted rejections.
The 35 U.S.C. ' 112, Paragraph 2 Rejection
The examiner rejects claims 1-12, 15, and 18 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. ' 112,
paragraph 2.
35 U.S.C. ' 112, paragraph 2, provides that A[t]he specification shall conclude with
one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which
applicant regards as his invention.@ This requires only that the claims set out and
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007