Appeal 2007-0041
Application 10/000,843
Fischer US 3,570,288 Mar. 16, 1971
Yasuda JP 63-252608 Oct. 19, 1988
Nakajima JP 64-2710 Jan. 01, 1989
Appellant contends that Nakajima does not disclose a separate adjustment
device for each working roll or a control device that provides a set value for each
of the adjustment devices as a function of a measured value of thickness of the
rolling stock.
Appellant further contends that Yasuda does not disclose controlling the
horizontal position of the rolls and thereby controlling the gap between the rolls
and like Nakajima does not disclose a control device that provides a set value for
each of the adjustment devices as a function of a measured value of thickness of
the rolling stock.
Appellant lastly contends that Fischer does not lead to the present invention.
DISCUSSION
Appellant's contentions do not persuade us of error on the part of the
Examiner because Appellant responds to the rejection by attacking the references
separately, even though the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the
references. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375,
380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this regard, we note that it is Yasuda that is relied on
rather than Nakajima for teaching an adjusting device for each working roll and
that Fischer is relied on for teaching a control device that provides a set value for
each of the adjustment devices as a function of a measured value of thickness of
the rolling stock. Likewise it is Nakajima not Yasuda that is relied on for teaching
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013