Appeal No. 1997-0252
Application 08/200,820
argue that alloys of iron and cobalt and of cobalt and nickel are not mentioned anywhere in
Clabes. Appellants argue that the claimed hard-magnetic alloys are not obvious design
selections [reply brief].
As we noted above, we find that Clabes broadly teaches the use of a hard-magnetic
material for the tip portion of the probe. Based on this finding, the artisan would expect any
such hard-magnetic material to be suitable because it is only the property of being a hard-
magnetic material which is relevant. Alloys of iron and cobalt and of cobalt and nickel were
well known in the art as being hard-magnetic materials [see, for example, 14 Kirk-Othmer
Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology 669-673 (3d ed. 1981) (copy attached)]. It would
have been obvious to the artisan to select the alloys recited in claims 10 and 13 when
deciding to use a hard-magnetic material for the probe as suggested by Clabes.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 10-15
and 24-28.
In conclusion, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of each of the appealed
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 7-
15, 22 and 24-28 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be
extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007