Appeal No. 2002-1609
Application 09/129,238
OPINION
We refer to the examiner’s position and adopt the examiner’s
position as our own, and affirm the rejection. Our comments
below are for emphasis only. When arguments presented in the
brief and reply brief are not specifically addressed below, it is
understood that we adopt the examiner’s position as our own in
response to such arguments.
I. The Art Rejection
a. Claim 8
On page 4 of the brief, appellants argue that a prima facie
case of obviousness has not been established with respect to the
claimed annealing temperature of “between 640ºC to 670ºC”.
On pages 4-5 of the answer, the examiner points out that
appellants’ specification, at lines 21 to 25 of page 11,
discloses “the continuous annealing carried out at a temperature
which is generally 20 to 30ºC above the recrystallization
temperature of the steel; in the case of the process according to
the invention, the annealing temperature is at most equal to
700ºC . . .”. The examiner states that Fujinaga, at line 20 on
page 8, discloses “the annealing temperature may be the
recrystallization temperature or above.” The examiner concludes
that the annealing temperature range of Fujinaga overlaps the
annealing temperature range of appellants’ claims (from 640ºC to
670ºC), and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness has been
established.
We agree with the examiner’s conclusion for the following
reasons. Because Fujinaga indicates that the annealing
temperature can be the recrystallization temperature of the
steel, and because appellants’ specification indicates that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007