Appeal No. 2001-0220
Application No. 09/244,044
recited impact pad and dam, are described by Schmidt within the
meaning of § 102 inasmuch as the claim language, "said dam having
a height such that when installed it extends upwardly . . .,"
(emphasis added) is merely a statement of intended use that does
not further define the structures for the impact pad and dam.
Unlike the claims, such as claim 13, which define a tundish
comprising an impact pad and a dam, the kit claims require no
tundish or interrelationship between the dam and a tundish. We
note that appellant acknowledges at page 4 of the principal brief
that Schmidt shows an impact pad like that of the present
invention. As for the claimed dam, it can hardly be gainsaid
that the dam of Schmidt has at least one hole therein which
allows the passage of molten steel therethrough.
This case is remanded to the examiner to consider the
obviousness, under § 103, of the tundish of claims 13, 15-19
and 24. Particular attention should be paid to the statement in
paragraph 5 of the Morales Declaration which states that "I chose
a dam height that was between 40-60% of the normal operating
steel level of the tundish because this is the range that I know,
from previous experience, gets the best results." While the
Declaration establishes that one of ordinary skill in the art
would know that every particular tundish has a normal maximum
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007