Appeal No. 1998-1154
Application No. 08/304,960
summarized by the examiner (Supplemental Answer, Paper No. 20,
pages 2-3), a main issue to be decided is “whether titanium
aluminum alloys are sufficiently analogous to aluminum alloys”
that the teachings of Armini can be applied to the methods of
the primary references. We determine that the examiner has
not presented convincing evidence or reasoning that one of
ordinary skill in this art would have applied the oxygen
immersion ion implantation of Armini to the aluminum of
Natishan or the aluminum alloys of Yonezawa. As appellants
have established, the titanium-6aluminum-4vanadium workpiece
of Armini is not an aluminum-based alloy within the meaning of
the claims on appeal (Brief, page 5; Substitute Reply Brief,
page 5). The examiner has not supplied sufficient reasoning
or evidence that one of ordinary skill in this art would have
applied the teachings of Armini regarding titanium alloys to
the aluminum alloys of Yonezawa. Armini teaches that the
zirconium and oxygen molecules diffuse into the workpiece and
chemically react (col. 2, ll. 28-33). The examiner has not
presented any convincing reasoning or evidence that zirconium
and oxygen would have been expected to so react with a
substrate materially different than the one exemplified by
Armini.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007