Appeal No. 1998-2257
Application 08/692,310
Other rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the rejections over Ballas, Sinfelt, Goretta and
McCormick, each in view of Nakajima,3 the examiner points out
that Ballas (col. 2, line 62), Sinfelt (col. 1, line 59),
Goretta (col. 2, line 3) and McCormick (col. 5, line 3) each
discloses an alloy recited in claim 32, and argues that the
appellants’ recited alloys would have been suggested by the
references even if the alloys are made by a different process
(answer, pages 6-11). The examiner provides a similar
argument regarding alloys produced by the combined teachings
of Bogdanovic and Sedlak (answer, pages 7-8 and 11), and
alloys suggested by Bushey (col. 6, lines 66-68). Although
the examiner’s argument is that the applied references suggest
the claimed alloy (answer, pages 10-11), the examiner provides
no explanation as to why the references would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify their teachings so as to
arrive at an alloy having characteristics according to the
appellants’ figures 36-42.
3 Nakajima is relied upon only for a disclosure of a
testing method as discussed above.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007