Appeal No. 1998-2328
Application No. 08/560,138
ll. 6-7). In view of the teachings of Robertson regarding the
criticality and essential nature of the disclosed ranges and
amounts, we find that the examiner has failed to establish any
reason or motivation for modifying the composition of Robertson
to include the claimed composition in the method of Robertson.
Additionally, we note that the examiner has not presented
any convincing evidence or reasoning that Robertson discloses or
suggests the exit temperature of the hot rolling process as
recited in the claims on appeal. The examiner equates the
“finish temperature” disclosed by Robertson with the “exit
temperature” of the hot rolling operation (Answer, page 4,
citing col. 10, ll. 29-32). Robertson teaches that “[t]he hot
rolled strip is then coiled at a finish temperature, which is
preferably 300 EC.” (Col. 10, ll. 25-26). However, this
teaching of Robertson refers to a temperature after the hot
rolled strip is processed. The examiner has not presented any
evidence or reasoning to support the finding that the finish
temperature is the same as the exit temperature of the hot
rolling operation.
For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in the Brief
and Reply Brief, we determine that the examiner has not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007