Appeal No. 1998-2756
Application No. 08/448,137
concludes that it would have been a matter of “design choice”
as to whether the reduction in thickness taught by Saur is
accomplished by rolling and/or drawing (Answer, paragraph
bridging pages 3-4).
Even if combined in the manner proposed by the examiner,
we determine that the references would not have disclosed,
taught or suggested the limitations of the claims on appeal
(see the Brief, paragraph bridging pages 7-8). As admitted by
the examiner on page 3 of the Answer, Jin fails to disclose
any cold rolling step. Saur fails to disclose or teach any
cold rolling step that reduces the thickness of the wire, much
less the reduced thickness of about 90% as required by claim 8
on appeal. Saur teaches that the wire 34 is “flattened
between pressure rolls to form the ribbon 36" of Figure 7 and
then the ribbon 36 is drawn “to form a reduced thickness
ribbon” (column 3, lines 16-19, emphasis added). Accordingly,
Saur teaches that drawing reduces the thickness but fails to
teach that the cold rolling reduces the thickness.
The examiner calculates that the thickness is reduced by
90% from the disclosure of Saur at column 3, lines 10-19
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007