Appeal No. 1996-4176
Application No. 08/287,915
we will not sustain that rejection. We agree with the
examiner that the rejection over Japan(‘044) is well founded.
Accordingly, we will sustain
the examiner's rejection over Japan(‘044) for essentially
those reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
The § 103 Rejection Over The Admitted Prior Art In View Of
Kempf
“[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review of
the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima
facie case of unpatentability.” See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The
examiner relies upon a combination of the admitted state of
the prior art and Kempf to teach the claimed subject matter of
appellants.
Both the admitted prior art and Kempf disclose an
aluminum alloy. The admitted prior art directed to the “2011"
aluminum alloy discloses an alloy containing aluminum, about
5-6 wt.% Cu, up to about 0.3 wt.% Zn, up to about 0.7 wt.% Fe,
up to about 0.4 wt.% Si, about 0.2-0.6 wt.% Bi and about 0.2-
0.6 wt.% Pb. See Specification, page 2. The alloy differs
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007