Appeal No. 2002-1609
Application 09/129,238
disclosed in Tables 3 and 4, annealing times of 10 and 20
seconds, which is within appellants’ range of less than 3
minutes. Hence, we agree with the rejection of claim 9.
c. Claims 10 and 11
On page 8 of the brief, appellants argue that claim 10 and
claim 11 have limitations regarding parameters of reduction ratio
for hot or cold working, steel sheet thickness, and annealing
time which are not taught by prior art.
The examiner finds that Fujinaga, at lines 5 to 28 on page
3, discloses using steel sheet to produce cans by various
techniques such as DRD, similar to appellant. Also, the examiner
finds that Table 3 on page 10 of Fujinaga discloses annealing
times ranging from 10 to 20 seconds, which is within the 20
seconds recited in claim 10, and is slightly less than the 30
seconds recited in claim 11. Also, the examiner finds that
Fujinaga’s claim 3 recites temper rolling at a reduction of about
50% or less, which is well within the range of 23 to 31% recited
in claim 10, and the range of 2.5 to 17% recited in claim 11.
Also, the examiner finds that Fujinaga recites specific examples
in Table 3 on page 10 ranging from 2 to 20% which fall within the
2.5 to 17% recited in claim 11. (answer, page 7)
The examiner further states that even though Fujinaga does
not teach the reduction ratios for hot or cold working as recited
by claims 10 and 11, the examiner states that such would not be a
patentable difference because such is well within the skill of
the artisan, absent a showing of unexpected results. (answer,
pages 7-8)
We agree with the examiner’s determinations and findings,
and note that where general conditions of the appealed claim are
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007