Appeal 2007-3581
Application 11/203,777
Appellants contend that even if the references are properly combined,
they do not teach every feature of claim 22 on appeal (Br. 4). Appellants
contend that the Examiner assumes the adjustable dams of the prior art have
an infinite range of widths to satisfy the claim requirement, but the Examiner
has not provided any evidentiary basis for this assumption (Br. 3-4; Reply
Br. 2).1
The Examiner contends that WO ‘612 shows every limitation of claim
22 on appeal but is silent with regard to the distance requirement (Answer
3). The Examiner further contends that either JP ‘743 or JP ‘359 shows that
the width of the strip can be easily controlled, thus resulting in widths where
the strip-casting device would be within the distance from the rolling stand
as specified in claim 22 on appeal (Answer 3-4).
Accordingly, the issue presented from the record in this appeal is as
follows: Would the distance between the strip-diverting device and the
rolling stand have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art in view of
the applied prior art evidence?
We determine that a prima facie case of obviousness has been
established, which prima facie case has not been adequately rebutted by
Appellants’ arguments. Therefore, we AFFIRM the sole ground of rejection
presented in this appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as
well as those reasons set forth below.
1 We note that Appellants, in addition to the arguments for the patentability
of claim 22, present specific arguments regarding claims 25, 27, 30-32, and
33 (Br. 4-7; Reply Br. 2-4). Accordingly, we consider these claims
separately in our remarks below.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013