Appeal No. 1997-2958 20
Application No. 08/401,719
Claim 5 is a process claim. Appellants have not shown that the added property limitations of
critical bending radius and yield strength ratio manipulatively modify the process in a way that
overcomes the prima facie case of obviousness over Komatsubara. In fact, appellants seem to be
arguing that the process of claim 4 results in the properties recited in claim 5.
Claim 1 to the Plate
Claim 1 is a claim to the aluminum alloy plate of specific alloy composition. This claim recites
that the plate has a 90° critical bending radius is 7.5 times or less a plate thickness and a yield strength
ratio before and after the final annealing is at least 70%. Claim 1 also requires the plate to have a non-
recrystallized crystal structure.
As discussed above, in reference to claims 4 and 5, the examiner has come to a reasonable
conclusion that optimizing the annealing step within the continuous annealing parameters of
Komatsubara would result in a plate with the composition, the critical bending radius and yield
strength ratio of claim 1. In re Aller, 220 F.2d at 456, 105 USPQ at 235.
In regard to the crystal structure set forth in claim 1, appellants would have us believe that
Komatsubara teaches omitting the final annealing step whenever unrecrystallized crystal structure is
desired. This is not what the reference teaches. As pointed out by the examiner, Komatsubara
suggests annealing at lower temperatures, i.e. temperatures at the lower end of the 35-550°C range.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007