Appeal No. 98-2735
Application No. 90004386
(2) the claimed “blister copper refining furnaces”; and
(3) “a pair of unbranched launders” for continuously supplying
blister copper from the “blister copper producing means” to
the “blister copper refining furnaces”. See Brief, pages 16-
19 and 22-27, including reference to Exhibits E, F, G and H.
On the other hand, we find that Bibby shows using branched
launders (gutter structure) to transport molten copper from an
upstream copper refining or producing furnace to a plurality
of downstream refining furnaces. See also Answer, page 4 and
12, and Brief, pages 26-27.
Based the above findings of fact, we agree with the
examiner to the extent that it would have been prima facie
obvious to employ the branched launder described in Bibby in
the copper smelting apparatus of Smith or Hoffmann. Whether
Bibby describes a batch or continuous copper smelting process
is not critical. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
had a reasonable expectation of successfully transporting
molten copper from a blister copper producing means to a
plurality of blister copper refining furnaces in the same
manner as that described in Smith and Hoffmann through
implementing one or two branched launders, in the place of one
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007