Appeal No. 2000-0590 Page 8
Application No. 08/019,500
It therefore is our conclusion that the combined teachings of Soderberg and Bond
fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited
in independent claim 14. This being the case, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 14
or, it follows, of dependent claims 6 and 8.
Dependent claim 9 stands rejected on the basis of the references cited against
claim 14, taken further with Seto, which is cited for its teaching of using multi-part horizontal
rolls so as to enable the mill to produce products of various sizes. Be this as it may, Seto
does not overcome the shortcomings we have focused upon above in the basic
combination of Soderberg and Bond, and therefore we will not sustain this rejection.
We reach the same conclusion with regard to dependent claims 10 and 11, wherein
Poloni has been added to the other three references for its teaching of using eccentric
adjustment means for horizontal rolls.
SUMMARY
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007