Appeal No. 2002-1609
Application 09/129,238
disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover
optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, and
appellants have the burden of proving any criticality. In re
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 218-19 (CCPA 1980); In
re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In view of the above, we therefore agree with the rejection
of claims 10 and 11.
d. Claim 12, 15, 16, and 17
On page 9-10 of the brief, appellants argue that Fujinaga
does not suggest the aspect of their claimed subject matter
wherein the steel is killed by adding a mixture of aluminum and
alumina to slag in order to prevent the steel from reoxidizing.
On page 8 of the answer, the examiner correctly indicates
that Fujinaga, at lines 36-51 on page 6, discloses an aluminum-
killed steel wherein aluminum is incorporated in the steel melt
to deoxidize the steel. The examiner states that although using
a slag having an adjusted amount of aluminum and alumina is not
specifically disclosed, it would be implicit because it is well
known in the metallurgical art as a commonly practiced technique
to kill and deoxidize steel. Because appellants do not challenge
this statement made by the examiner, we sustain the rejection of
claim 12. See In re Kunzmann, 326 F.2d 424, 425 n.3, 140 USPQ
235, 236 n.3 (CCPA 1964).
e. Claim 13
On page 9 of the brief, appellants argue that claim 13
additionally requires that the steel is cast in the form of a
slab in an inert atmosphere continuous casting plant.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007