Appeal No. 2005-0657
Application No. 10/136,984
from entry to the heat end) so that the slag and feedstock could
adequately mix and fuse into a cement clinker composition. As
construed above, the “mid kiln location” as claimed is defined by
the same factors as suggested by the prior art references (see
claim 1 on appeal, step (c)).
Where the claimed subject matter has been rejected as
obvious in view of a combination of prior art references, a
proper analysis under section 103 requires, inter alia,
consideration of whether the prior art would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art that they should carry out the
claimed process and whether, in so carrying out the claimed
process, those of ordinary skill would have a reasonable
expectation of success. See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20
USPQ2d 1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As correctly noted by the
examiner (Answer, pages 6 and 8-10), the particular placement of
the entry port for feeding slag into the kiln would have been an
arbitrary choice, absent a showing of unexpected results. See In
re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 8-9 (CCPA
1975)(particular placement of the contact provides no novel or
unexpected result). As established by our discussion of the
prior art references above, the exact location of the feed entry
to the kiln does not appear critical as long as the residence
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007