Appeal No. 1998-2328
Application No. 08/560,138
allowable if rewritten in independent form (Brief, page 2; Final
Rejection, page 4).
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a
method of making high-strength aluminum sheet products which
includes controlling hot roll entry and exit temperatures during
sheet processing to minimize or eliminate surface defects
(Brief, page 3). A copy of illustrative claim 19 is attached as
an Appendix to this decision.
The examiner relies upon Robertson et al. (Robertson), U.S.
Patent No. 4,282,044, issued Aug. 4, 1981, as evidence of
obviousness. Accordingly, the claims on appeal stand rejected1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Robertson (Answer,
page 3; see also the Final Rejection, page 2). We reverse the
examiner’s rejection essentially for the reasons set forth in
1The examiner lists three references as “the prior art of
record relied upon in the rejection” (Answer, page 3,
paragraph (9)). In the re-statement of the rejection (Answer,
page 3, paragraph (11)), no reference is identified but the
examiner refers to Paper No. 5. In the Office action dated
Nov. 27, 1996, Paper No. 5, page 3, the only rejection over
prior art involves Robertson (see also the Final Rejection,
again only employing Robertson as the evidence of
obviousness). Accordingly, for purposes of this appeal, we
only consider Robertson as the examiner’s evidence of
obviousness (see also the Brief, page 4, paragraph VI).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007