Ex Parte Lehman - Page 3

                 Appeal 2007-0881                                                                                      
                 Application 10/250,972                                                                                

                 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and further applies Narita combined separately with                               
                 each of the two additional references, to two other sets of claims under                              
                 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on essentially the same teachings; the three grounds of                            
                 rejection submitted for review on appeal by Appellant (Supp. Answer 4-6;                              
                 Br. 5).  A discussion of the additional references is not necessary to our                            
                 decision.                                                                                             
                        The device or apparatus encompassed by independent claim 11 must                               
                 contain, among other things, two magnet cores, each facing a respective                               
                 short side.  The magnetic cores are arranged to generate a magnetic field and                         
                 an induced current in molten metal adjacent to the respective short sides,                            
                 wherein “the magnetic field generally has a direction perpendicular from the                          
                 respective short side of the mold towards the center of the latter.”                                  
                        The grounds of rejection turn on the fact issue whether prima facie                            
                 Narita would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art an apparatus                          
                 that has at least two magnet cores facing a respective short side of a mold                           
                 and arranged to generate a magnetic field and an induced current in molten                            
                 metal adjacent to the respective short sides, in which respect “the magnetic                          
                 field generally has a direction perpendicular from the respective short side of                       
                 the mold towards the center of the latter” as required by claim 1                                     
                        The Examiner contends that Narita’s Fig. 4 depicts an apparatus for                            
                 breaking the flow of molten metal in a mold that has two electromagnetic                              
                 agitating coils 2d,2g on the respective short sides which generate the                                
                 claimed magnetic field (Answer 4; Narita’s Fig. 4).  According to the                                 
                                                                                                                      
                 Amendment filed June 13, 2005, that was entered by the Examiner in the                                
                 Advisory Action mailed July 18, 2005.  We refer to these respective                                   

                                                          3                                                            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013