Appeal No. 2003-0764
Application No. 09/660,797
(Answer, page 3). We reverse the examiner’s rejection essentially
for the reasons stated in the Brief and those reasons set forth
below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that the admitted prior art, as expressed
on pages 3-6 of the specification, teaches a method of cooling
steel rail stock, including the use of short duration immersion
steps for cooling steel sections with a head section facing
downwardly and a base section facing upwardly, with different
cooling rates employed for the different sections (Answer, page 3).
Therefore the examiner finds that the admitted prior art shows “all
aspects of the above claims except the use of controlling the
cooling process with a computer.” Id.
The examiner finds that Ackert teaches that it was known in
the rail heat treatment art “to employ computer controlled cooling
and regulation steps to monitor and regulate the cooling parameters
of a cooled workpiece.” From these findings, the examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to employ the automated
computer controlled cooling and regulation steps of Ackert in the
systems of the admitted prior art in order to improve and automate
the cooling system (id., citing In re Venner, 120 USPQ 193, for the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007