Appeal No. 2001-2187
Application No. 09/333,356
aware of the problem of orifice plate distortion (Column 1, lines
59-60).
Coggin’s deflector plate also “partially impedes” the flow of
molten glass. Further, it must be attached to a first and second
wall, while being spaced by a gap between a third and a fourth
wall. (See figure 3, ref. numeral 56).
Accordingly, although not stated with any specificity in the
examiner’s rejection, we also come to the parallel conclusion that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
import the bushing structure of Coggin into the furnace apparatus
of Demaschquie for its superior advantages, i.e. reducing direct
impingement of the glass on, and deflecting particles away from,
the orifice plate.
However, we agree with the appellant and find that the claim
limitation that the baffle unit must be in the chute not to be met
by the examiner’s proposed combination of references. Coggin’s
diverting plate 56, when swapped with Demaschquie’s bushing,
results in a structure wherein the “baffle” is in the bushing.
While we agree with the examiner that the baffle is nonetheless
within the flow path of the melted glass; the claim requires the
baffle to be in the chute itself. The claimed chute is part of
the refractory melting receptacle; and not part of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007