Ex parte NAKAMURA et al. - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 1999-0778                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/710,685                                                                                                             


                                            18.  A refined magnesium or magnesium alloy                                                                 
                                   ingot or billet provided with no substantial                                                                         
                                   porosity, which contains 0.1 to 10 weight % of at                                                                    
                                   least one alkaline earth metal selected from the                                                                     
                                   group consisting of calcium, barium and strontium                                                                    
                                   and less than 10 weight % of at least one corrosion                                                                  
                                   resistant metal selected from the group consisting                                                                   
                                   of zinc, cadmium, lead, tin, silicon, manganese and                                                                  
                                   zirconium.                                                                                                           

                                                                THE REFERENCE                                                                           
                 Akiyama et al. (WO ‘238)         WO 93/15238        Aug. 5,2                                                                                           
                 1993                                                                                                                                   
                          (PCT application)                                                                                                             
                                                                THE REJECTION                                                                           
                          Claims 18-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                                                                          
                 being unpatentable over WO ‘238.                                                                                                       
                                                                     OPINION                                                                            
                          We affirm the aforementioned rejection.  Because our                                                                          
                 rationale differs substantially from that of the examiner, we                                                                          
                 denominate the affirmance as involving a new ground of                                                                                 
                 rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).                                                                                                     
                          The appellants state that they do not concede that a                                                                          
                 prima facie case of obviousness has been established, but that                                                                         

                          2Our consideration of this reference is based upon an                                                                         
                 English translation thereof, a copy of which is provided to                                                                            
                 the appellants with this decision.                                                                                                     
                                                                           3                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007