Appeal 2007-0881
Application 10/250,972
performed just as in a rotating type magnetic field, so that the flow of the
melt becomes highly smooth” (McElroy translation 3-4; see also Aho
translation 1-2). Narita discloses that the electromagnetic coils apply an
agitating force in the direction of the arrows in the melt in slab 1 (McElroy
translation, e.g., 2 and Fig. 1). We find one of ordinary skill in the art would
have observed that, in Narita’s Fig. 4, the direction of the arrows in the melt
in slab 1 are in the same direction as the arrows over each of electromagnetic
coils, and thus would have inferred that the arrow direction indicates the
direction of the magnetic field generated by the electro magnetic coil, which
is parallel to the side of the mold.
In order to show that Narita’s apparatus inherently meets the claim
limitation “the magnetic field generally has a direction perpendicular from
the respective short side of the mold towards the center of the latter,” the
Examiner must establish by evidence or scientific reasoning that it
reasonably appears from the reference that electromagnetic coils 2d,2g, each
facing a respective short side, would necessarily generate a magnetic field in
a direction perpendicular from the respective short side of the mold towards
the center thereof as claimed, and that it would be so recognized by one of
ordinary skill in the art, as “[t]he mere fact that a certain thing may result
from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. (Citations omitted).”
In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d 578, 581, 212 USPQ 323, 326 (CCPA 1981); see
also Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1462-64 (BPAI 1990), and cases cited
therein.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not carried this
burden. We find the Examiner has provided little technical reasoning and no
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013