Appeal No. 2000-0590 Page 2
Application No. 08/019,500
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a rolling mill stand. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 14, 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:
Soderberg et al. (Soderberg) 1,865,286 Jun. 28, 1932
Bond 4,557,130 Dec. 10, 1985
Poloni et al. (Poloni) 4,907,437 Mar. 13, 1990
Seto et al. (Seto) 5,031,435 Jul. 16, 1991
Claims 6, 8 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Soderberg in view of Bond.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Soderberg in view of Bond and Seto.
. Claims 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Soderberg in view of Bond, Seto and Poloni.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 29) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 28) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 30) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007