Appeal 2007-0881
Application 10/250,972
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and further applies Narita combined separately with
each of the two additional references, to two other sets of claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) on essentially the same teachings; the three grounds of
rejection submitted for review on appeal by Appellant (Supp. Answer 4-6;
Br. 5). A discussion of the additional references is not necessary to our
decision.
The device or apparatus encompassed by independent claim 11 must
contain, among other things, two magnet cores, each facing a respective
short side. The magnetic cores are arranged to generate a magnetic field and
an induced current in molten metal adjacent to the respective short sides,
wherein “the magnetic field generally has a direction perpendicular from the
respective short side of the mold towards the center of the latter.”
The grounds of rejection turn on the fact issue whether prima facie
Narita would have disclosed to one of ordinary skill in the art an apparatus
that has at least two magnet cores facing a respective short side of a mold
and arranged to generate a magnetic field and an induced current in molten
metal adjacent to the respective short sides, in which respect “the magnetic
field generally has a direction perpendicular from the respective short side of
the mold towards the center of the latter” as required by claim 1
The Examiner contends that Narita’s Fig. 4 depicts an apparatus for
breaking the flow of molten metal in a mold that has two electromagnetic
agitating coils 2d,2g on the respective short sides which generate the
claimed magnetic field (Answer 4; Narita’s Fig. 4). According to the
Amendment filed June 13, 2005, that was entered by the Examiner in the
Advisory Action mailed July 18, 2005. We refer to these respective
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013