Appeal 2007-3581
Application 11/203,777
OPINION
We determine the following factual findings from the record
presented in this appeal:
(1) WO ‘612 discloses a strip-casting device for producing a cast
metal strip of various thicknesses, a rolling stand downstream of the strip-
casting device used for in-line deforming of the cast, undivided metal strip,
and a strip-diverting device (steering device 14) between the strip-casting
device and the rolling stand (Abstract; 1:9-14; 4:4-18; 5:6-25; and 6:20-33);
(2) WO ‘612 teaches the use of side dams to confine the casting pool
and thus determine the width of the cast metal strip (1:22-24 and 7:3-9);
(3) WO ‘612 teaches the problem of “wandering” of the cast metal
strip along its processing path, and the need for control of the direction and
the tension of the cast metal strip along its path (Abstract; 1:29-34; 2:1-4;
2:18-23; 3:9-10; 3:15-21; 4:4-18; 8:23-34; 9:5-12; 10:16-11:12; and 12:28-
33);
(4) WO ‘612 exemplifies the strip-diverting device in relation to the
rolling stand as about four widths of the cast metal strip (see Fig. 4); and
(5) JP ‘359 and JP ‘743 both teach the use of side dams at the ends of
the rolls so that the width of the cast metal strip may be varied (Answer 3;
JP ‘359, 2 (last four lines); 4:1-2; 7 (second full paragraph); 8 (first full
paragraph); 10 (last three lines); and Fig. 1; JP ‘743, 4 (second full
paragraph); 5 (first paragraph); 7 (last full paragraph); and 8 (first three
paragraphs).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the factual inquiry into obviousness requires a
determination of: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013