Appeal 2007-3581
Application 11/203,777
employed any side dams, such as those of the secondary references, in the
process and apparatus of WO ‘612, to produce cast metal strips of any width
(see factual finding (5) listed above). We also determine that one of
ordinary skill in this art would have been aware of the problem of
“wandering,” and by routine experimentation located the strip-diverting
device a sufficient distance away from the rolling mill to control the position
and tension of the cast metal strip as it moved along the process path (see
factual finding (3) listed above). This determination is reinforced by the
drawing of WO ‘612, which shows the two devices approximately four strip
widths apart, well within the large range required by claim 22 on appeal (see
factual finding 4 listed above). We note that Appellants have not presented
any evidence of criticality for the claimed range. See In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to Appellants’ arguments concerning claim 25 (Br. 4),
this argument is answered by our remarks above. With regard to the
argument concerning claim 27 (Br. 4; Reply Br. 2), we note that control of
the tension of the cast metal strip has been suggested by WO ‘612 (see
factual finding (3) listed above). Accordingly, absent a showing of
criticality, we determine that setting of a tension for the cast metal strip
would have been well within the ordinary skill in this art. With regard to
Appellants’ arguments concerning claims 30-32 (Br. 5; Reply Br. 3), we
refer to and adopt the position of the Examiner (Answer 5). We note that
this feature has been suggested by WO ‘612 (12:28-37). With regard to the
argument concerning claim 33 (Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3), we determine that
adjusting the location of the strip-diverting device would have been within
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013