Appeal No. 2002-1067
Application No. 09/358,666
it also contained allowable subject matter, but currently was
objected to. In the revised main brief (Paper No. 12),
appellants stated that they “pursue their appeal only as to
claims 16-18 and 22-26.” Hence the appeal as to claims 1, 4-10
and 13 is dismissed, leaving for our consideration only the
examiner’s final rejection of claims 17, 18 and 22-26.
Appellants’ invention pertains to a process for reducing
distortion of metal strips (claims 17 and 18), and to the
combination (claims 22-26) of a machine for slitting a metal
sheet into strips and an appliance for reducing distortion
imparted to the strips during slitting. A further understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of independent
claims 17 and 24, which appear in the appendix to appellants’
revised main brief.1
The sole reference relied upon by the examiner in the final
rejection is:
Wegner 3,724,251 Apr. 3, 1973
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Wegner.
1
1Appealed claim 22 depends from base claim 1, and appealed
claim 23 depends from base claim 8. As noted above, appellants
no longer pursue their appeal as to these base claims.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007