Appeal No. 96-2056
Application No. 08/210,139
Pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter
a new ground of rejection of claims 11 through 14 under 35
U.S.C. 102(e) as anticipated by, or under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over Masumoto ‘935.
OPINION
A. The Rejection over Masumoto ‘196
Appellants and the examiner agree that Masumoto ‘196
discloses the molding of alloys within the temperature and
time parameters required by the claims on appeal but fails to
disclose the compositional formulas recited in these claims
(Brief, pages 6-7, Reply Brief, pages 1-2, and the Answer,
pages 3-4). As noted by the examiner, the formula in the
claims on appeal recites a lanthanide element (or misch metal)
while Masumoto ‘196 “is silent with respect to these
elements.” (Sentence bridging pages 3-4 of the Answer).
The examiner states that this difference between the
claimed subject matter and the prior art “is not seen as a
patentable distinction” for two reasons (Answer, page 4).
First, the examiner states that “while not matching precisely
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007