Appeal No. 1997-4237
Application No. 08/665,992
B. The 35 U.S.C. ' 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, and 13-16 as obvious over
Petrushka in view of Ford
The examiner states that Petrushka teaches all of the aspects of claims 1-4, 6-8, and 13-
16, except for the use of measuring means for measuring the amount of material within a
receiving vessel. The examiner relies upon Ford for teaching the use of measuring means
for measuring the amount of material within a receiving vessel. (Answer, pages 4 and 5).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Petrushka does not teach use of historical data of
furnace lining wear, or calculation of an optimal angle of tilt. (Brief, page 10).
We agree with appellant=s understanding of Petrushka mentioned above. That is, we
cannot find any disclosure in Petrushka that satisfies the limitation of an optimal tilt angle
that is calculated as a function of furnace geometry and historical data of furnace lining
wear as set forth in appellant=s method claim 1 and as recited in appellant=s apparatus
claim 13.
The examiner argues that Petrushka teaches adjusting an angle of tilt in response to
sensed conditions, at column 6, lines 66 to column 7, lines 17. (Answer, page 8).
However, this disclosure is not a teaching of the claim limitation of an optimal angle of tilt
calculated as a function of furnace geometry and historical data of furnace lining wear. We
cannot find such disclosure in Petrushka, nor can we find a structure capable of performing
such a function. Ford does not cure this deficiency of Petrushka.
Hence, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. ' 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 6-8, and 13-16 as
obvious over Petrushka in view of Ford.
C. The 35 U.S.C. ' 103 rejection of claims 5, 17, and 18 as obvious
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007