Ex parte KURODA et al. - Page 5

                 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