Appeal 2006-2551
Application 09/423,911
for can making (Br. 2-3).1 A copy of illustrative independent claims 5 and 7
may be found in the Appendix to Appellants’ Brief.
The Examiner has relied upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Daly US 5,362,340 Nov. 08, 1994
Windhaus US 5,548,882 Aug. 27, 1996
Kamishiro (JP ‘896) JP 07-041896 Feb. 10, 19952
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Daly alone (Answer 5) or in view of JP ‘896 (Answer 8).
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over Daly in
view of Windhaus (Answer 10).
We AFFIRM all rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons stated
in the Answer, as well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection of Claims 5 and 6
The Examiner finds that Daly discloses a process for producing
aluminum strip for can sheet comprising the steps of hot rolling an
aluminum strip in a single stand reversible hot mill while minimizing
recrystallization, coiling, and annealing in a furnace at 315-399 ēC. (Answer
5). The Examiner also finds that the presently claimed “roughing step” is
included in the step taught by Daly of converting an ingot to form a sheet
(id.). The Examiner further compares the claimed steps against the
corresponding steps taught by Daly in the Table on page 6 of the Answer.
1 We refer to and cite from the “Amended Appeal Brief” dated Oct. 4, 2004.
2 We rely upon and cite from a machine-assisted English translation of this
document, previously made of record.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007