Appeal No. 2002-1752
Application 09/180,464
by the examiner in support of her conclusion of obviousness as to
claim 27 are set forth on pages 5-8 of the Examiner’s Answer.2
Appellants urge that the ASM Handbook teaches the
importance of cooling after homogenization, but “fails to include
any disclosure about the cooling rate subsequent to the reheating
step.” Appeal Brief, page 5, fourth paragraph. The examiner’s
response to appellants’ argument is as follows:
The argument that the present invention is
allowable over the prior art of record
because “the ASM Handbook reference discusses
different types of quenching after solution
heat treatment, which corresponds to the
‘homogenizing’ step in Reiso ‘858 . . .” has
not been found persuasive. . . . [H]eating
above the solubility temperature of the
precipitated phases is also known in the art
as heating to a temperature where the alloy
is in solid solution, or “solution heating”,
or “solution heat treating”. Solution heat
treating is commonly done prior to quenching,
wherein quenching is done to preserve a
supersaturated structure (see ASM Handbook,
pages 851-853, etc.). “Homogenizing” is
typically done after casting to eliminate or
decrease chemical segregation (to make the
structure more homogeneous).
Examiner’s Answer, page 10, second paragraph.
2 The examiner’s detailed and organized approach in setting
forth the rejection is appreciated.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007