Appeal 2006-2882
Application 10/433,729
discloses that the hot rolling step is “preferable” not merely optional
(Answer 6). Moreover, the Examiner finds Guelton discloses that hot rolling
may be performed in “one or more steps” (Answer 7). The Examiner also
finds that the properties of Guelton’s high manganese steel strip would
“inherently” be the same as Appellants’ properties because Guelton’s
process is identical to that claimed by Appellants (Answer 7).
We agree with the Examiner’s ultimate finding that claims 12-14 and
18-25 are anticipated by Guelton.
Appellants’ only argued distinction is whether Guelton discloses
performing a hot rolling step in a single pass immediately after casting.
However, as clearly stated by the Examiner, Guelton discloses Appellants’
features recited in claim 12, including “immediately after said casting step
and without reheating said roughed strip, continuously processing said
roughed strip by being hot rolled in a roll stand in a single hot roll pass to the
final thickness of the hot strip” (Answer 3). As the Examiner correctly
found, Guelton discloses that the hot rolling step is “preferable” and may be
performed in “one or more” passes (Guelton, col. 4, ll. 11, 19-20) (Answer
6-7). Hence, Guelton discloses Appellants’ only argued distinction.
Moreover, Appellants are mistaken that Guelton teaches away from
hot rolling. Appellants cite to Guelton, column 2, lines 4-11 as showing that
Guelton teaches away from using a hot rolling step (Br. 5). However, a
closer examination of Appellants’ cited passage indicates such passage
refers to a conventional method of manufacturing a steel strip, not Guelton’s
disclosed method.
For two reasons, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments
regarding the various properties of the steel strip achieved by hot rolling in a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013