Appeal No. 2005-0614
Application No. 09/171,735
the Appellants argue as a distinction only one claim feature.
Specifically, it is the Appellants’ contention that:
Nitou fails to teach or suggest that the
intermediate coil receives a complete casting
sequence of a precursor strip. Rather, Nitou
discloses that non-continuous rolling achieves
the same effects as continuous rolling (see
page 3, lines 12-14). Figs. 1 and 2 of Nitou
also show multiple intermediate coils
thereby indicating non-continuous rolling.
Accordingly, appellant [sic, appellants]
respectfully submits that Nitou fails to teach
or suggest that an intermediate coil is formed
from a continuous precursor strip of a complete
casting sequence, as recited in independent
claim 6. [Brief, pages 4-5].
Accordingly, we will limit our patentability consideration in the
subject appeal to this sole argued claim distinction.
We cannot agree with the Appellants that Nitou contains no
teaching or suggestion that his continuous precursor strip is “of a
complete casting sequence” as required by the independent claim on
appeal. In this regard, we observe that Nitou expressly discloses
that his continuously cast slab S1 is continuously cast from a
known continuous casting machine 1A (e.g., see paragraphs 7 and 9
on translation page 3). This continuously cast slab S1 corresponds
to the “continuous precursor strip” of appealed claim 6.
From our perspective, the disclosure of Nitou, at a minimum,
would have suggested that his slab S1 be of a complete casting
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007