Appeal No. 2002-0018
Application No. 09/231,897
Having carefully considered the examiner’s position in light of the combined teachings of
Matsui, Buehler and Munoz we find ourselves in agreement with appellant that the standing
rejections cannot be sustained. Our reasons follow.
Independent claim 1 calls for a liquid jet nozzle for forming a high velocity liquid jet from
pressurized liquid comprising a nozzle body made of monolithic Nitinol. Claims 16, 24, 28 and 32,
the other independent claims on appeal, contain similar language.
In rejecting these claims, the examiner considers that Matsui discloses a high pressure
injection nozzle formed from a super hard alloy. The examiner concedes that the nozzle body of
Matsui is not made of Nitinol. The examiner takes the position, however, that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Matsui’s nozzle body of a nickel based alloy such
as Nitinol in view of Buehler. More particularly, the examiner asserts (answer, pages 3-4):
Buehler et al teaches that Nickel-Based Alloys, such as Nitinol
containing 56-64% weight nickel, are capable of achieving high hardness and corrosion
resistance (column 1, line 35; and column 8, lines 36-37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the
time the invention was made to have replaced the metal alloy used in Matsui et al’s
invention with Monolithic Nitinol (or Nitinol 60), since it has been held to be within
the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its
suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshing
[sic, Leshin], 125 USPQ 416.
The examiner’s position is further explained on page 5 of the answer as follows:
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007