Appeal No. 1998-2756
Application No. 08/448,137
(Answer, page 3). However, these calculations only apply to
the reduction in thickness between the rod wire before cold
rolling and the ribbon/flat wire after cold rolling and
drawing (see Saur, column 3, lines 10-19). The limitation
recited in claim 8 on appeal requires a flat wire such that
(t -t)/t x 100 is equal to or more than about 90%, where t isi i i
the whole thickness of the cross section of the rod wire
before cold rolling (i.e., in Saur at most 0.020 inch, see
column 3, line 11) and t is the whole thickness of the cold-
rolled flat wire (which is not disclosed in Saur, see column
3, lines 16-17). Therefore the examiner’s calculations do not
address the limitation as recited in claim 8 on appeal.
For the foregoing reasons, the limitations recited in
claim 8 on appeal are not disclosed, taught or suggested by
the applied prior art unless, as urged by the examiner,
rolling and drawing are matters of “design choice” and
considered to be the “functional equivalent” of each other
(Answer, page 4). However, the examiner has not presented any
evidence or convincing reasons why one of ordinary skill in
this art would have considered the two operations of rolling
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007