Appeal 2007-1529
Application 10/385,722
Claims 12 and 13
Regarding dependent claims 12 and 13, Appellants present
substantially similar arguments to the additional arguments presented for
dependent claims 5 and 7. We do not find these arguments persuasive for
essentially the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 5 and 7. Thus,
we shall also affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claims 12 and 13, on this record.
Claim 36
Regarding independent claim 36, Appellants present contentions
paralleling those presented with respect to claim 8 with the notable
distinction that independent claim 36 does not employ the AZ or AM alloy
limitation of claim 8. Rather, claim 36 allegedly restricts the alloy from
including calcium by employing “consisting essentially of” transitional
phraseology in specifying the required alloy components Mg, Al, Zn, and
Mn.
Appellants maintain that the transitional phrase “consisting essentially
of” excludes the presence of calcium in the alloy being processed in claim
36. Appellants assert that the applied EP ‘710 and EP ‘901 references,
which references disclose alloys including at least 0.5 percent calcium, do
not teach or suggest a method corresponding to the claim 36 method.
Moreover, Appellants contend that calcium is a critical component of the
alloys of EP ‘710 and EP ‘901. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would
not have been led to employ an alloy substantially free of calcium as a
substitute for the calcium-containing alloys of EP ‘710 and EP ‘901.
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013