Appeal 2007-1835
Application 10/509,861
Examiner has not explained how the claim language “adapted . . . relative to
the contact surface to the local development of the heat flux density and/or
temperature of the contact surface” has been interpreted in the context of the
Specification. Nor has the Examiner explained how this claim feature is
necessarily present in the configuration of passages 3/restrictor rod 4
disclosed in GB ‘988. A general reference to the figures (Answer 4 and 5)
as illustrative of the claimed “geometric designs of the heat-transfer surface
areas of a cooling channel” is simply not sufficient to establish anticipation
in this case. Likewise, the Examiner does not identify where “GB '988
discloses that Qmax and Tmax is inherently in the region under molten
metal level” (Answer 5).
Accordingly, we Remand this Application to the Examiner pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1) (effective September 13, 2004, 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(August 12, 2004), 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (September 7, 2004)) to
take appropriate corrective action.
REMANDED
sld/ls
FRIEDRICH KUEFFNER
317 MADISON AVENUE, SUITE 910
NEW YORK, NY 10017
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4
Last modified: September 9, 2013