Appeal No. 1998-0682
Application 08/724,306
Rather than attempt to reiterate the examiner's full commentary with regard to the above-noted
rejections and the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants regarding the
rejections, we make reference to the Office action mailed January 31, 1997 (Paper No. 13) and the
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 20, mailed November 4, 1997) for the reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 17, filed September 10, 1997) for the arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to appellants’
specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Kennedy and Hitachi Cable, the
examiner points out that Kennedy teaches a rolling billet formed by disposing two profiled slabs with a
thick portion of one slab facing a thin portion the other slab. It is also noted that the slabs of Kennedy
are each formed by a casting operation. Hitachi Cable is then relied upon to show that profiled strips
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007