Appeal 2006-2882
Application 10/433,729
single pass without reheating the steel strip. First, as the Examiner correctly
found, and the Appellants have not met their burden of proving otherwise,
such properties would be inherent in Guelton’s steel strip because
Appellants’ and Guelton’s method of manufacturing the steel strip are
identical (Answer 7). In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-
34 (CCPA 1977). Second, since the properties Appellants argue are present
in their steel strip are not recited in their claims, such properties will not be
read into the claims when assessing the patentability thereof. In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 12-14 and 18-25 under § 102(e) over Guelton.
CLAIMS 15-17
Appellants have not separately argued the § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 15-17 over Guelton in view of Suzuki. Rather, Appellants
rely on their arguments made with regard to the § 102(e) rejection.
As previously noted, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments
regarding the § 102(e) rejection. Accordingly, the § 103(a) rejection is
sustained for the same reasons the § 102(e) rejection is sustained.
We affirm the § 103(a) rejection of claims 15-17 over Guelton in view
of Suzuki.
CONCLUSION
We have affirmed the § 102(e) rejection of claims 12-14 and 18-25
over Guelton.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013