Appeal No. 2005-0567
Application 10/280,391
whole disclosed at Sekino col. 2, ll. 1-11, or, on this record, the difference therebetween is
minor, thus shifting the burden to appellants to establish that the claimed alloys would not have
been obvious over those of Sekino. We also do not agree with appellants’ arguments that the
teachings of the ranges of the claimed amounts of Ni and Fe are not found in Sekino (brief, pages
8-9 and 12), because one of ordinary skill in this art would have looked to the teachings of the
whole of the disclosure of Sekino, including the illustrative Examples therein, with respect to the
disclosure at col. 2, ll. 1-11, and accordingly, we remain of the opinion expressed in these
respects above based on the facts in the reference (see above pp. 8-9). We further note with
respect to appellants’ arguments (brief, pages 10-11), that the disclosure of the alloy
compositions at Sekino col. 2, ll. 1-11, is couched in the same format used by appellants in
specifying the compositions in claims 1 through 6, 9 and 12. Finally, with respect to appellants’
argument that certain material in Sekino is “cast and wrought” (brief, page 11), we find no
limitation in appealed claims 6 and 8 through 10 which excludes “wrought” because the
specified limitations require only “casting . . . into a mold to form a cast article” which cast
article can then be further treated as permitted by the transitional term “comprising,” and indeed,
claims 7, 8 and 11 include a further treatment step of the cast article.
We are not convinced by appellants’ arguments with respect to appealed claim 7 (brief,
pages 12-15) that the teachings of Sekino and Stalker would not have been combined by one of
ordinary skill in this art because we remain of the opinion stated above that the disclosure of
Stalker would have suggested to this person that the method thereof can be applied to cast
articles of the heat resistant alloys of Sekino Col. 2, ll. 1-11. Indeed, even if we adopted
appellants’ unsupported argument2 that the hot working of the cast article as taught by Sekino
“largely removes the casting defects that Stalker is seeking to remedy,” the so hot worked
casting of Sekino would still contain defects at least to some extent, and thus would benefit from
the Stalker method.
We are also not convinced by appellants’ arguments with respect to appealed claim 11
(brief, pages 15-16) that the teachings of Sekino and Fried would not have been combined by
2 It is well settled that arguments not supported by evidence are entitled to little, if any, weight.
See In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 315, 203 USPQ 245, 256 (CCPA 1979); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d
506, 508, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972).
- 16 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007