Appeal No. 1997-2958 6
Application No. 08/401,719
arguments specifically directed to claims 6-13 and 15-19. Therefore, we find the statement in the brief
at page 8 that each of the claims on appeal stands or falls on its own merits is not supported by specific,
substantive arguments for separate patentability in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and
(8)(1995). Thus, it will be necessary for us to discuss in detail only claims 1-5, 14, and 20-22. We
break the claims into the following general groups for discussion:
C claim 1 to the plate;
C claims 20-22 to the plate as defined by the process;
C claims 2, 3 and 14 to the process including batchwise annealing parameters; and
C claims 4 and 5 to the process including continuous annealing parameters.
We begin our analysis with independent process claim 4.
Process Claim 4
Claim 4 sets forth a process of forming an aluminum alloy plate of a specific composition,
casting the alloy, rolling to a final plate thickness and subjecting the rolled plate to final annealing at the
specific temperature and time parameters of the continuous annealing operation.
The Alloy Composition Recited in Claim 4
In regard to the specific alloy composition, the examiner, in the rejection, states that the
Komatsubara alloys contain alloying elements (Mg, Mn, Be, Cr, Zr, V, Fe, Si) in amounts overlapping
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007