Appeal No. 1999-0545 Page 10
Application No. 08/606,068
the catenaries” (emphasis added) to avoid temperature shock to the edge dam blocks
during the providing step. Except for the use of induction heaters, it is our conclusion that
the claimed method is taught by Wood. On the basis of the rationale set forth above with
regard to claim 1, we are of the view that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to perform the Wood method with an induction heater. Thus, we also will sustain
the rejection of claim 7.
Independent apparatus claim 10 differs from claim 1 in that it sets forth the invention
is somewhat different terms, However, we will sustain the rejection on the basis of Wood
and Ross for the same reasons as were applied to independent
apparatus claim 1. We also will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 11, the
patentability of which was not argued with any reasonable specificity before the Board.
Dependent claim 12 adds to claim 10 the limitation concerning annular induction
coils which also was present in claim 4. As we stated above, this feature is not taught by
the applied prior art, and we therefore will not sustain the rejection of claim 12.
We have, of course, carefully considered all of the arguments set forth by the
appellants. However, with regard to those rejections which we have sustained, these
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007