Appeal No. 2000-0503 Page 7
Application No. 08/902,031
Toth discloses "stainless steel, aluminum or similar materials" as suitable materials for
the vessel (column 2, lines 22-24). It is also apparent from Toth's disclosure in column 1, lines
52-60, and column 2, lines 13-32, that suitable materials should be corrosion-resistant,
relatively light-weight and sufficiently strong to satisfy the testing requirements of organizations
such as ISO and AAR. Toth does not specifically disclose 5000 series aluminum alloy and
6000 series aluminum alloy as container assembly materials, as required by claim 83. The
examiner, however, concludes that the specific aluminum materials claimed would have been
obvious matters of design choice in the Toth device in view of the fact that no particular
criticality appears to be associated therewith (final rejection, page 3).
The appellants (brief, page 19) argue that Toth does not teach one skilled in the art that
the particular aluminum alloys claimed (the 5000 and 6000 series) would indeed provide the
appropriate strength, durability, heat treatability and ability to be artificially aged and welded so
as to produce the claimed intermodal container. Additionally, the appellants urge on pages 3
and 4 of their reply brief that the limitation of their claims to only 30% of the large number of
known aluminum alloy designations "is a teaching that [the other] 70% will not work with this
intermodal container."
The appellants' argument that the limitation in claim 83 to 5000 and 6000 series
aluminum alloys is a teaching that the remaining 70% of the known alloys will not work with
appellants' intermodal container is not well taken. While the remaining 70% of known
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007