Appeal No. 96-2682
Application 08/145,269
rejection and, if appropriate, the specific
limitations in the rejected claims which are
not described in the prior art relied on in
the rejection, and shall explain how such
limitations render the claimed subject matter
unobvious over the prior art. If the
rejection is based upon a combination of
references, the argument shall explain why
the references, taken as a whole, do not
suggest the claimed subject matter, and shall
include, as may be appropriate, an
explanation of why features disclosed in one
reference may not properly be combined with
features disclosed in another reference. A
general argument that all the limitations are
not described in a single reference does not
satisfy the requirements of this paragraph.
Thus, 37 CFR § 1.192 provides that just as the court is not under
any burden to raise and/or consider such issues, this board is
also not under any greater burden.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 through 5, 19 and 20. Furthermore, beyond the Appellants’
failure to argue the limitation recited in claim 1, we further
note that Appellants’ claim 1 recites a wide range of percentages
of tungsten and molybdenum that can form the alloy. In
particular, claim 1 recited “an alloy comprised of between about
10 to 90 percent by weight tungsten and about 10 to 90 percent
by weight molybdenum.” In addition, we find that Driessen
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007