Appeal 2007-0881 Application 10/250,972 evidence to support the conclusions submitted, which thus appear to us to be speculative in nature. Levy, 17 USPQ2d at 1462-64. Indeed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found in Narita the teaching that each of the electromagnetic coils in the two sets thereof, each set surrounding a respective short side of the mold, would function in concert with the others to maintain the circular, “U turn,” rotation of the horizontal flow of the molten metal parallel to the sides of the mold, which includes acceleration of the flow by electromagnetic coils 2d,2g situated with respect to the mold as claimed. On this record, this reasonably requires a direction of the magnetic field generated by the electromagnetic coils in the direction of the flow of the molten metal parallel to the walls of the mold, as indicated by the arrows in the molten metal as well as above the electromagnetic coils, and not the claimed direction of the magnetic field. Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie case of anticipation and of obviousness, we reverse the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a). 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013