Appeal No. 2002-1067
Application No. 09/358,666
The roll surface of each of the rolls 30, 31 has a
shallow bevel or frusto-conical configuration with the
larger diameter at the locality of proximity of the two
roll surfaces . . . . By reason of the preferably very
narrow axial dimension of the roll surfaces, as well as
their taper, all possibility of rolling metal contact
with the advancing strip surfaces is limited strictly
to the edge corner regions where smoothing function is
desired. [Column 5, lines 28-43.]
Wegner further states that
. . . very preferably the work rolls are relatively
narrow in the transverse direction of the strip, in
that for example in one embodiment the total width of
the two bevelled work faces together was about
seven-eighths inch. By reason of their bevelled or
tapered configuration, at a relatively small angle such
as 2° to 5° to the path plane, e.g., 3° for metal 0.008
inch thick and upwards, engagement with the strip is
limited essentially to the corner area, i.e., to the
actual deformed locality. [Column 13, lines 5-15.]
The linchpin of the standing rejection of claim 24 as being
anticipated by Wegner is the examiner’s determination that
Wegner’s work rolls 30, 31 have “substantially cylindrical”
exterior surfaces as called for in claim 24. More particularly,
the examiner takes the position (answer, page 4) that
[a]lthough Wegner teaches that the roll surface of each
of the rollers (30, 31) has a shallow bevel or frusto-
conical configuration[,] this does not mean that the
rollers cannot be substantially cylindrical. The term
“substantially” . . . allows room for slight deviation.
Wegner teaches that the roll surface of each of the
rollers has a shallow bevel (col. 5, lines 28-29),
which by interpretation may be within the range of a
“substantially” cylindrical roller. A shallow bevel
can range anywhere from a minuscule dimension such as a
nanometer to a larger dimension that would not
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007