Appeal No. 2000-1274
Application No. 08/977,286
line," but do specifically recite that there are breakdown
roll stands positioned or located at or on the second side of
the furnace. Also, we agree with the appellants that (brief,
page 5):
Neumann does not disclose or suggest rolling on
the opposite furnace side. Contrary to what the
examiner states, the equipment identified by the
reference numeral (10) in Neumann is merely a
"rollway" [,] i.e., a roller table, and not a
series of roll stands for rolling larger billets
into smaller process sections.
The examiner further takes the position that (answer,
third and fourth pages):
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to substitute the breakdown roll stands of
Kovacs for the descaling device of Neumann in
order to provide a workpiece suitable for
rolling in subsequent roll stands.
We do not agree. Under § 103, teachings of references can be
combined only if there is some suggestion or incentive to do
so.
ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d
1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Here, we fail
to see what suggestion or incentive there would have been for
one of ordinary skill to substitute Kovacs’ breakdown roll
stands 22 for Neumann’s descaling device 4, since they perform
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007