(concurring).
My decision to affirm the Board of Patent Interferences is predicated upon my agreement with the following statement of the board:
“In fact Vogt has no means for moving ‘an enclosing hood’ between the positions recited or between any positions. If the collar formed by bringing the two sections together and into sealing contact may be said to constitute ‘an enclosing hood’ once the parts are brought together, it must be noted that there is no means to move the hood, but only a means to destroy its identity as a collar or hood.”
To meet the counts in issue, the burden was on Vogt to show that the “enclosing hood” called for in each count is met by his construction. It is my opinion that he has not discharged this burden. Vogt has disclosed in his specification what is there termed a “sealing member.” Vogt describes it as follows:
“ * * * This sealing member is in the general form of a relatively short, open ended cylinder or tube, separated into two equal semi-cylindrical parts on a vertical median plane, the two parts being adapted to horizontal motion, having their confronting faces 24 in contact in the closed or blowing position, and being spaced apart, equidistant from the vertical center line of the vessel in the retracted or vessel loading and discharging position. * * * ”
Such a construction is properly a split collar which can perform the functions of McFeaters “enclosing hood” only when the two segments of the collar are brought together during one cycle in the operation of the furnace. During this cycle the collar admittedly performs the same functions as does the “enclosing hood” of McFeaters. Here, however, the similarity ends. The collar of Vogt is broken and its identity as a collar is destroyed when the two segments are moved away from each other during an ensuing cycle in the operation. When this is done there is no longer a unit identity which permits Vogt’s collar to be moved as an “enclosing hood” in the manner called for in the counts.