Appeal No. 2003-0651 Page 3
Application No. 09/348,761
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Delans discloses a one pass rolling mill comprising a pair of rolls 10, 11 and a
rolling mill plug 14 having a configuration which includes a plurality of “frusta-conical”
portions 17, 18, 19 respectively spaced longitudinally from one another by cylindrical
portions 20, 21, 22 which are of different diameters and lengths (column 2, lines 20-24).
As disclosed in column 3, line 14 et seq., the working of the metal of the pierced shell
(blank) S occurs primarily on the three intermediate portions 18, 21 and 19 of the rolling
mill plug 14. The leading “frusta-conical” portion 17 and the following cylindrical portion
20 also function in stopping cobble which occurs due to irregularity in the inner surface
of the pierced shell S and additionally ensure the proper alignment of the one pass
rolling mill plug with the pierced shell S (column 3, lines 36-41). Delans lacks first and
second symmetrical parts of revolution each having “a symmetrical surface of revolution
and a meridian of parabolic shape and a part for calibrating said at least one main part
and said reinforced part of said guide tube, respectively” as called for in paragraph d) of
claim 13. Specifically, none of the portions of Delans’ rolling mill plug has a meridian of
parabolic shape; all surfaces are either “frusta-conical” or cylindrical.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007