Appeal No. 1999-0545 Page 2
Application No. 08/606,068
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to an apparatus for continuously casting molten
metal . An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 1, which appears in the appendix to the appellants’ Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Wood et al. (Wood) 4,934,441 Jun. 19, 1990
Ross 5,133,402 Jul. 28, 1992
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combined teachings of Ross and Wood.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 15) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 14) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007