Appeal No. 2006-0010 Page 14
Application No. 10/170,538
F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195
USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Aller, 42 CCPA 824, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Accordingly, we conclude that a prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Regarding claims 24, 25 and 41-44, Appellants argue that Jin '358 does not
teach or suggest that it is advantageous to control the distance between a gas outlet
opening of a gas feeding pipe and the surface of the metal melt or establish the
relationship of the distance between the gas outlet opening and the surface of the metal
melt for determining the dimension of the gas outlet opening. (Brief, pp. 53 and 58-60).
Regarding claims 26-28 and 40, Appellants argue that the claim specifies the
shape and arrangement of the gas outlet end of the gas feeding pipe of the device.
(Brief, pp. 53-54 and 57-58).
Jin >358 describe an apparatus where the gas outlet opening of a gas feeding
pipe is inserted below the surface of the metal melt. As discussed above, Jin >358 also
recognizes the nozzle size and configuration of the gas outlet opening can be varied.
Appellants= arguments are unpersuasive because they have failed to establish the
criticality of the recited nozzle shape and configuration.
Regarding claims 39, 45, 47-58 and 60-62, Appellants argue Jin '358 fails to
teach or suggest that the size of the individual gas bubbles and the size uniformity
thereof can or should be controlled, at least in part, by the geometric design of a gas
outlet. Appellants further argue that Jin >358 does not provide motivation to use the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007