Appeal No. 98-2735
Application No. 90004386
Nevertheless, the above combination suggested by the
combined teachings of either Smith and Bibby or Hoffmann and
Bibby does not result in the claimed subject matter. For
instance, none of the Smith, Hoffmann and Bibby references,
either alone or in combination, teaches, or would have
suggested, the above-mentioned specific selecting assembly
structure at the specific location, which is part of the
claimed blister copper launder means of the claimed copper
smelting apparatus. Nor do any of the remaining prior art
references relied upon by the examiner remedy the above
deficiencies. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 1 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As a final point, upon return of this application, the
examiner is to determine whether U.S. Patent 5,205,859 issued
to Goto et al and U.S. Patent 4,390,169 issued to LaBate,
which are already placed in the application by appellants,
affect the patentability of the claimed subject matter. With
respect to LaBate, it should be considered together with the
prior art already relied upon by the examiner.
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007