Ex Parte Higashi et al - Page 7

                Appeal 2007-1529                                                                              
                Application 10/385,722                                                                        

                material, which alloy is useful in the manufacture of automobile engine parts                 
                (EP’ 901, p. 3, ll. 5-9, 38, and 39).  In this regard, EP ‘901 evinces that the               
                use of average crystal particle sizes of less than 10 µm results in higher                    
                tensile strength (EP ‘901, Fig. 9).  Also, Kojima discloses the beneficial                    
                effect of employing small crystal grain sizes, including sizes within the                     
                claimed range in enhancing the plasticity (formability)  properties of                        
                magnesium alloys (Kojima, Section 5.5 and Table 5.5.1).  In light of these                    
                teachings of the applied references, there is ample evidence suggesting the                   
                use of small crystal grain sizes as claimed in the forging alloy material of EP               
                ‘710, notwithstanding Appellants’ argumentation to the contrary.                              
                      Concerning the requirement of representative claim 1 for further                        
                forging, we note that Appellants acknowledge the use of more than one                         
                forging (shaping) step to be well known (Specification, ¶ 0005).2  Moreover,                  
                Appellants have not distinguished the representative claim 1 forging by                       
                specifying patentably distinct or differing conditions therefore (see, e.g.,                  
                paragraph 0020 of Appellants’ Specification).  In this regard, EP ‘710                        
                discloses hot forging at temperatures, such as 250°C, and at forging rates                    
                that would appear to be encompassed by the forging of representative claim                    
                1.  Compare paragraphs 0028-0058 of EP ‘710 with paragraphs 0037 and                          
                0038 of the Specification.  In any event, representative claim 1 is not limited               
                                                                                                             
                2 It is axiomatic that admitted prior art, including prior art found in an                    
                applicant’s Specification, may be used in determining the patentability of a                  
                claimed invention, and that consideration of the prior art cited by the                       
                Examiner may include consideration of the admitted prior art found in the                     
                Specification.  In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 570-571, 184 USPQ 607, 611-                       
                612 (CCPA 1975); In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258                            
                (CCPA 1962).                                                                                  
                                                      7                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013