Appeal No. 2005-0614
Application No. 09/171,735
sequence. This is because Nitou unambiguously teaches that the
quantity of his casting machine charge may correspond to the
quantity of hot strip product (e.g., see the first paragraph on
translation page 6 as well as the third paragraph on translation
page 3). Thus, for example, a 100 ton charge from Nitou’s casting
machine may correspond to a 100 ton hot strip order. In light of
this disclosure, we are convinced that one with ordinary skill in
the art would have found it obvious to form Nitou’s continuous slab
S1 (which corresponds to the Appellants’ claimed continuous
precursor strip) “of a complete casting sequence” from a continuous
casting plant in which the continuous precursor strip is produced.
We observe that the Appellants, in their brief, stress the
fact that Nitou teaches non-continuous rolling of his slab S1
(e.g., see pages 4 and 5 of the brief). While this is true, it
does not militate against our above noted conclusion of
obviousness. The non-continuous rolling of Nitou’s continuous slab
S1 is depicted in parts A and B of Nitou’s Figure 1 and corresponds
to the similarly non-continuous rolling steps disclosed in the
subject specification and defined by appealed claim 6 in the second
through fifth steps thereof. This non-continuous rolling operation
is simply irrelevant to whether Nitou teaches or suggests a
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007