Appeal No. 1999-1489
Application No. 08/691,193
be sustained for the additional reason that we do not find any
disclosure or teaching of such a process in Kosik.
Remand to the Examiner
As discussed above, we have not sustained the § 103
rejection of claims 1 to 10 because the examiner presented no
evidence of a suggestion, teaching or motivation to use friction
welding. However, it appears that such evidence may be
available in the prior art. For example, on page 50.3 of the
Welding Handbook, the last paragraph lists some advantages of
friction welding in relation to other welding processes. Also,
on several pages there is a disclosure of the use of friction
welding to join aluminum parts, and Table 50.2 (page 50.13) even
mentions aluminum 6061 alloy. Accordingly, the application is
remanded to the examiner pursuant to 37 CFR 1.196(e) to
determine whether at least claims 1 to 3 and 6 to 10 should be
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kosik in
view of the Welding Handbook and/or other prior art which may
provide the evidence we have found to be lacking in this case.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is reversed; to reject claim 11 under
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007