Appeal No. 1996-2484
Application 08/239,439
OPINION
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
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007