Ex parte Fish

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 1999

08158853 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 1999)

Application for patent filed November 29, 1993. 1
According to appellants, the application is a continuation-in-
part of Application No. 07/814,689, filed December 30, 1991,
now abandoned.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the
Board.
Paper No. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte GEORGE L. FISH
____________
Appeal No. 95-4615
Application No. 08/158,8531
____________
HEARD: July 13, 1999
____________
Before PAK, OWENS, and KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134 from
the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 24, which
are all of the claims pending in this application.
Appeal No. 95-4615
Application No. 08/158,853
2
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a roof or lid
for melting furnaces, which generally has a diameter of twenty
six feet. See specification, page 1. Claims 1, 13 and 20 are
representative of the subject matter on appeal and read as
follows:
1. A furnace lid, comprising:
a center panel;
side panels surrounding the center panel, each side panel
having an outer edge, an inner edge abutting the center panel
and lateral edges each extending between their outer edge and
their inner edge, and abutting a lateral edge of an adjacent
side panel, said side panels being inclined upwardly from
their outer edges toward their inner edges, forming with the
center panel a lid having substantially a dome shape, the
lateral edges and inner edges being formed with keyways
accessible from a surface of the lid; and
keys located in the keyways, wherein the center panel,
keys and side panels are formed of castable refractory.
13. A segment of a furnace lid comprising:
a substantially planar panel of precast refractory having
an upper surface, a lower surface, lateral edges and an inner
edge, wherein the lower surface has a portion inclined
relative to the upper surface:
a concave channel extending along each lateral edge,
located below the outer planar surface of the panel; and
a relatively thin passage or recess formed along the
lateral edges between an outer surface of the panel and the
channel, connecting the channel and said outer surface of the
panel.
Appeal No. 95-4615
Application No. 08/158,853
3
20. A furnace lid, comprising:
a center panel block; and
side panels surrounding the center panel block, each side
panel including a skewback and a plurality of blocks extending
from the skewback to said center panel block, said center
panel block and skewbacks having a step portion and said
plurality of blocks having spaced apart step portions, wherein
in assembly, the step portions mutually engage, so that the
center panel block and side panels form a substantially arch
shape.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies on the
following references:
Hawke 1,524,033 Jan. 27,
1925
Beckman et al. (Beckman) 3,434,263 Mar.
25. 1969
Claims 1 through 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Hawke and
Beckman.
We have carefully reviewed the entire record, including
all of the arguments advanced by the examiner and appellant in
support of their respective positions. This review leads us
to conclude that the examiner’s § 103 rejection is not well
founded. We will not sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection
for essentially those reasons set forth in the Brief. We add
the following primarily for emphasis.
Appeal No. 95-4615
Application No. 08/158,853
4
With respect to claim 1 through 19, the examiner states
that the Hawke reference discloses "all aspect of the [claimed
features] except [sic, for] the instantly recited... keyways
[and keys]..." According to page 7 of the specification, the
terms "keyways" and "keys" recited in claims 1 and 7 are
defined as follows:
As Figure 4 shows, the lower edges of the
panels are formed with beveled surfaces 50 to
facilitate installation. When adjacent side
panels are placed in position, the complementary
channels 46 and passages 48 become aligned and
form a keyway 44 accessible from the upper
surface of the panels. Castable refractory,
preferably KRICON 30 XR or KRIFORM 30 XR low
water vibrating castable, is placed into the
passages, flows into the channels, fills the
channels and passages, dries, cures and hardens,
thereby providing a structural connection among
the side panels, referred to hereafter as keys
45.
To remedy the deficiencies of the Hawke reference, the
examiner relies on the Beckman reference. Beckman discloses
using a shear link (keyways and keys) between "concrete units,
such as slabs, panels, etc...," to "add additional shear
strength and reduce the shear stress supported by the cement
grout in the joint" between adjacent concrete units. See
column 1, lines 40-50 together with columns 3 and 4. The
Appeal No. 95-4615
Application No. 08/158,853
5
examiner then appears to conclude that it would have been
obvious to use the structure (keyways and key) proposed by the
Beckman reference in the furnace roof described by the Hawke
reference.
The examiner, however, has not supplied sufficient facts
for concluding that one of ordinary skill in the art would
look to the structure associated with concrete units to
improve the structure associated with refractory furnace
roofs. In this regard, we note that the examiner has not
established that the furnace roof of the type described in the
Hawke reference has the same or similar characteristics, e.g.,
suffers from the same or similar joining problems, as the
concrete units of the type described in the Beckman reference.
There is no evidence establishing the need for the shear link
structure of the concrete units described in the Beckman
reference in the furnace roof of the type described in the
Hawke reference. Absent the appellant’s own disclosure, we
can think of no reason why one of ordinary skill in this art
would have been motivated to combine the diverse teachings of
the Hawke and Beckman references as the examiner has proposed.
As the court in Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d
Appeal No. 95-4615
Application No. 08/158,853
6
1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988) stated, "it
is impermissible to use the claims as a frame and the prior
art references as a mosaic to piece together a facsimile of
the claimed invention."
With respect to claims 20 through 24, the examiner
appears to recognize that neither the Hawke reference nor the
Beckman reference describes the furnace lid structure recited.
We also note that the Hawke and Beckman references, either
individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest a
furnace lid having a center panel block and a skewback each
containing step portions, with a plurality of blocks having
spaced apart step portions extending from the skewback to the
center panel block to form a substantially arch shape. The
examiner, however, alleges that this claimed furnace lid
features are no more than an obvious design choice. This
allegation is unsupported by any facts. There is no evidence
whatsoever that the claimed furnace lid features are an
obvious design choice. Nor is there any evidence that the
claimed furnace lid features would have been suggested to one
of ordinary skill in the art.
Appeal No. 95-4615
Application No. 08/158,853
7
In view of the foregoing, we agree with appellant that
the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness regarding the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
REVERSED
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
TERRY J. OWENS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
PETER F. KRATZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CKP:lp
Appeal No. 95-4615
Application No. 08/158,853
8
FELIX J. D'AMBROSIO
JONES, TULLAR & COOPER
P.O. BOX 2266 EADS STATION
ARLINGTON, VA 22202
Leticia
Appeal No. 95-4615
Application No. 08/158,853
APJ PAK
APJ KRATZ
APJ OWENS
DECISION: REVERSE
Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation (s)
Panel Change: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): _____
Prepared: February 24, 2000
Draft Final
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD GAU
PALM / ACTS 2 / BOOK
DISK (FOIA) / REPORT