Appeal 2007-0200
Application 10/445,466
We make reference in this decision to the Examiner's Answer (mailed
October 17, 2005) and Appeal Brief (filed August 25, 2005).1
THE ISSUE
In rejecting the claims, the Examiner reads the first set of deskulling
nozzles and second set of deskulling nozzles of Appellants' claims on the
main and auxiliary nozzles (36 and 38 or 36' and 38') of the lance of Watkins
(Answer 3). Appellants argue that, while the auxiliary nozzles 38 and 38'
disclosed by Watkins may function as deskulling nozzles, the main nozzles
36 and 36' do not function as deskulling nozzles (Appeal Br. 10) and are
incapable of being used as deskulling nozzles, because they "simply do not
diverge sufficiently from the longitudinal axis of the lance whereby they
could direct flows of deskulling oxygen at skull deposits in a furnace vessel"
(Appeal Br. 12 and 13). This is the only argument relied upon by Appellants
in contesting both the anticipation rejection and the obviousness rejection.
The only issue presented in this appeal therefore is whether Appellants have
demonstrated that the main nozzles 36 and 36' of Watkins are not deskulling
nozzles.
Appellants have not argued any of the claims separately from any
other claim on appeal. Accordingly, we focus our attention on claim 1, with
claims 2-20 standing or falling with claim 1.
1 Appellants' Reply Brief (filed November 2, 2005) was not in compliance
with 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(a) and has not been entered (Office Communication
mailed July 20, 2006). Thus, we have not considered the Reply Brief in our
decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013