Appeal No. 2002-1447
Application 09/167,776
For the above reasons we reverse the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
We need to address only the independent claims, i.e.,
claims 1 and 5.
The appellants argue that Stahl does not teach or suggest
“supplying casting powder to the molten metal so that a
relationship hslag $ hstrand shell ... is maintained” as recited in
claim 1, or “means for supplying powder to the mold as a function
of the stroke, mode, and frequency of oscillation of the mold so
that a height of a slag layer proximate the upper surface of said
mold is greater than or equal to a height of a portion of a
strand shell which penetrates the slag layer during oscillation
of the mold” as recited in claim 5 (brief, page 12).
The examiner does not point out where Stahl discloses or
would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
these limitations or any other limitation of the appellant’s
claims. The examiner merely asserts that “Stahl et al
substantially show the invention as claimed except the powder
dispensing means”, and asserts that a powder dispensing device is
conventional for lubricating the interface between a mold and a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007