Appeal Number: 2006-1694
Application Number: 10/131,607
The appellants argue that Mücke does not disclose a strip processing line at
all (brief, page 8). The strip processing line is the subsequent treatment and strip
processing discussed by Mücke (col. 1, lines 23-35).
The appellants argue that Mücke does not disclose setpoint comparison,
creation of an error signal and adjustment of a correcting roller in response thereto
(brief, page 8). Mücke’s comparison of the strip curvature with an intended value
is the setpoint comparison and error signal creation (col. 4, lines 31-34). In
response to the error signal, an algorithm is used to adjust the straightening rolls
(col. 2, lines 57-67; col. 4, lines 34-35).
The appellants argue that adjustment of the position of Mücke’s
straightening roll 18 in any way to change the relationship shown in Mücke’s
figure 4 will defeat Mücke’s purpose (brief, pages 9-10). The appellants are
incorrect. Mücke adjusts the position of the straightening roll to bring about the
desired straightening of the strip (col. 2, lines 22-32 and 57-63; col. 4, lines 34-35).
The appellants argue that Mücke does not disclose straightening directly
before the strip enters a strip processing device as required by claim 2 (reply brief,
page 3). Mücke’s disclosure that the strip is straightened to prevent problems and
damage to the strip in subsequent treatment of the strip (col. 1, lines 23-33) would
have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, straightening the strip
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013