Appeal 2007-2421
Application 10/289,793
view of Asahi, JP 07-268578
vii) Claims 15 and 17 are rejected as obvious over Kawamura
and Asahi and further in view of Katemani
viii) Claims 16 and 18 are rejected as obvious over Kawamura
and Asahi and further in view of Ando
ix) Claim 19 is rejected as obvious over Nakagawa
JP 09-143652 (“Nakagawa”) in view of Ando
As to claims 1-18, the Examiner found that Kawamura
describes a hot-dip plating process. In particular, the Examiner found
that Kawamura describes a hot-dip plating process “where there is no
external force from outside the surface of the metal strip as the strip is
taken out of the bath as claimed.” (Answer, pages 3-4).
JFE states that Kawamura describes a hot-dip plating process
that employs a “conventional continuous settling tank.” (Appeal Br.,
p. 12, citing Kawamura, Fig. 1 and p. 8 of translation). JFE agrees
that Kawamura Fig. 1 does not depict the use of a submersed support
roll. (Appeal Br., p. 12). JFE however, states that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have recognized that submersed support rolls
were included as Kawamura describes and depicts a conventional hot-
dip galvanizing line (“CGL”). JFE provides the two declarations to
support its contention that conventional CGLs include submersed
support rolls. Specifically, JFE relies upon the declarations of Mr.
Kawamura, a named coinventor of the Kawamura application, and
Mr. Taguchi, a person of skill in the steel sheet and strip art.
As to claim 19, the Examiner found that Nakagawa describes
JFE’s claimed method with the exception of describing the use of a
single submersed support roll. (Answer, pages 8-9). The Examiner
found that Ando describes the use of a single support roll and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013