Appeal 2007-1529
Application 10/385,722
Appellants’ assertion that “[c]hanging an AZ alloy to a non-AZ alloy
would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed
alloy” (Reply Br. 9, Br. 12) is unpersuasive in that claim 36 is not limited to
an AZ alloy, and Appellants have not established a definition for AZ alloys
as excluding calcium. Moreover, Appellants expressly indicate in paragraph
0020 of the Specification that “[i]t is to be understood that both the
foregoing general description and the following detailed description are
exemplary and explanatory only, and are not restrictive of the invention as
claimed.” Thus, Appellants have not established that their invention is
bound by the use of non-calcium containing alloys or alloys of low creep
resistance properties.
Consequently, we do not find Appellants’ arguments with respect to
the “consists essentially of” language of claim 36 to be persuasive of
reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection.
With respect to the Examiner’s separate obviousness rejection of
claims 24 and 35 over EP ‘710 in view of EP ‘901, Kojima and Bardi,
Appellants present separate arguments for both of these dependent claims.
In this regard, each of these claims requires the dissolution of beta phase
grains into alpha phase grains during the solution heat treatment such that
the forged product is substantially devoid of beta phase grains in crystal
grain boundaries of the alloy.
The Examiner relies on Bardi to show that dissolution of beta phase
grains as well as the change/interaction of the alpha phase grains during
heating to buttress the Examiner’s determination that the claimed phase
interactions would have been expected to occur during the heating
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013