Appeal No. 97-2220
Application 08/250,607
the claimed phosphorous parameters pointing to specification Table 1 (id., pages 10-12). Appellants
submit similar arguments with respect to separately argued claims (id., pages 12-18). Appellants reply
in their reply brief, filed April 23, 1998 (Paper No. 26) to the examiner’s response to their arguments in
the principal brief that we cite above.
It is readily apparent from appellants’ specification that it contains the admissions that we found
therein and/or took notice based thereon coupled with the teachings of the applied references (decision,
pages 3-5), and they have not disputed our findings in this respect. Indeed, it is readily apparent that
the entire thrust of appellants’ specification is based on their admission that as compared to “copper
deoxidized by phosphorus . . .widely used for the conventional refrigerant tube or conventional heat
exchanger tube,” which is subject to “ant-nest type corrosion” (pages 1-2), and to “phosphorous
deoxidized copper” used with fin-tube exchangers because of “thermal conductivity and corrosion
resistance” (page 3), the claimed “phosphorus deoxidized copper” alloy has “superior corrosion
resistance,” including “ant-nest type corrosion” (pages 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10), “superior . . . brazing
properties” (pages 2, 4, 5, 10, 12 and 13) and “thermal conductivity resistance” (page 8). This theme
of an improvement in properties over prior art tubes prepared from known phosphorous deoxidized
copper alloys is continued in the comparison of claimed phosphorous deoxidized copper alloys with
apparently known, prior art phosphorous deoxidized copper alloys with respect to the properties of
resistance to “ant-nest type corrosion” and “brazing” in the specification Examples and Comparative
Examples (e.g., specification Table 1).
It is readily apparent that the properties that appellants disclose in their specification to
distinguish the claimed phosphorus deoxidized copper alloys from the admittedly known phosphorous
deoxidized copper alloys are the same or similar properties that the examiner finds in the alloys of
Hensel, which alloys he further finds to have the same or similar ranges of amounts of manganese and
phosphorus. Thus, while we recognized the thrust of appellants’ disclosure as admitting the state of the
prior art at the time the claimed invention was made in our original opinion, it is apparent therefrom that
the ranges and ratios of manganese and phosphorus of the copper alloys shown in Hensel and the
properties thereof taught by the reference as relied on by the examiner was indeed the basis for the
grounds of rejection. See In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007