Appeal No. 96-4103
Application 08/363,479
recognition of the advantages achieved by increasing the
aluminum mole fraction, appellants argue that there is no
motivation to increase the mole fraction of 0.5 as taught by
Yokoyama [brief, pages 5-6].
The examiner admits that there is no overlap between
the claimed range (x>0.5) and the prior art range (x=0.5).
Never-theless, the examiner insists that x is only
approximately 0.5 due to the imprecision of the manufacturing
process [answer, page 10]. Presumably, the examiner is
asserting that the aluminum mole fraction in Yokoyama may be
greater than 0.5 because of manufacturing imprecision.
The examiner’s position is untenable because it is
based on the position that when a prior art document teaches a
value of 0.5, it really means approximately 0.5. There is
nothing within the four corners of Yokoyama to suggest that
any aluminum mole fraction other than 0.5 was intended or
desired. The only suggestion for increasing the mole fraction
above 0.5 comes from appellants’ disclosure in which the
advantages achieved are set forth. If the artisan did not
have appellants’ disclosure before
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007