Ex parte GRAVEMANN et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 1996-2484                                                        
          Application 08/239,439                                                      

               We have carefully considered all of the arguments                      
          advanced by appellants and the examiner and agree with                      
          appellants that the                                                         
          aforementioned rejections are not well founded.  Accordingly,               
          we reverse these rejections.                                                
               Each of appellants’ independent claims recites an article              
          of manufacture which comprises a casting roll or casting wheel              
          comprised of a specified alloy.  The examiner argues that                   
          because the structure of the casting wheel or roll is not                   
          recited, appellants are claiming the alloy itself (answer,                  
          pages 5-7).  This argument is not well taken because “casting               
          roll or casting wheel” is a recitation of structure, i.e., a                
          roll or wheel which is suitable for casting.  As indicated by               
          appellants’ specification (page 1, lines 11-15), casting                    
          involves contact of the casting wheel or roll with a molten                 
          metal or alloy.  Thus, the material of which a casting wheel                
          or roll is made must be capable of withstanding contact with                
          such a molten material.                                                     
               The examiner, however, has provided no evidence or                     


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007