Appeal 2006-2882
Application 10/433,729
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by the
Appellants and by the Examiner concerning these rejections, we refer to the
Brief and to the Answer respectively for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
The Examiner rejected claims 12-14 and 18-25 under § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Guelton. The Examiner found that Guelton discloses
Appellants’ claim features, including “immediately after said casting step
and without reheating said roughed strip, continuously processing said
roughed strip by being hot rolled in a roll stand in a single hot roll pass to the
final thickness of the hot strip.” (Answer 3-4). Appellants dispute whether
Guelton discloses the aforequoted claim feature (Br. 6).
Appellants argue that Guelton fails to disclose the “influences of such
a step [of hot rolling in a single pass immediately after casting the roughed
strip] on the structure and the properties such hot rolling has [on the steel hot
strip], and thus the desirability of performing the hot rolling step” (Br. 5).
Appellants argue that Guelton’s hot rolling is merely an option and Guelton
actually discloses an advantage in eliminating the hot rolling (Br. 5).
Specifically, Appellants contend that Guelton discloses removing hot rolling
from the process so as to eliminate the risk of hot cracking the steel strip by
the necessary reheating prior to hot rolling (Br. 5). Appellants further
contend Guelton’s steel is austenitic in structure regardless of the
temperature used to hot roll it, such that there is no reason to implement
Guelton’s optional hot rolling step (Br. 5).
The Examiner responds that Guelton discloses all of the features of
claim 12 (Answer 6). Specifically, the Examiner indicates that Guelton
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013