Appeal 2007-0881
Application 10/250,972
Examiner, Narita does not disclose “generating a magnetic field parallel to
the short side, but . . . teaches perpendicular to the short side as claimed,”
contending with respect to electromagnetic coils 2d,2g, “[t]he flow of the
magnetic field is the flow of the molten metal, which is in a horizontal
direction, wherein the short side is vertically stacked, not shown but
conventional” (id. 7, original emphasis omitted). Thus, the Examiner
contends “the flow is perpendicular to the short side and not parallel” (id.).
The Examiner contends Appellant correctly argues Narita’s Fig. 4 shows
“the rotation of the magnetic flow is horizontal,” with the “acceleration . . .
showing the acceleration of molten metal in a horizontal flow causing a
braking or slowing movement of the molten metal in the downward flow,”
and “[t]he use of magnetic field is to agitate the flow horizontally to slow the
downward movement” (id. 7-8, original emphasis omitted). With respect to
electromagnetic coils 2c,2e and 2f,2h, which are arranged along the broad
sides of the mold and respectively grouped with electromagnetic coils 2d
and 2g, “are complementary brake to the electromagnetic brake” (id. 4).
Appellant contends Narita does not disclose the claimed apparatus, but
teaches an apparatus that rotates “a magnetic flow horizontally” by generating
“traveling magnetic fields that agitates and accelerates the flow of material,”
with the generated “magnetic field parallel to short sides of a mold” (Br. 6).
Appellant contends that from Narita’s Fig. 4 and its explanation in the Aho
translation, the depicted apparatus “functions to speed up the flow of molten
material, not provide a breaking force” (id. 6-7, citing Aho translation pages
1-2). Appellant contends “[t]he arrangement of electromagnetic agitating
documents as the McElroy translation and the Aho translation.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013