Appeal No. 1998-2948
Application 08/400,861
oxidation thickness for claimed aluminum alloy, which, of
course, would be an anticipation. It is sufficient that the
collective teachings of the references suggest the claimed
subject matter.
The Examiner stated that Appellants have not provided any
evidence showing the superiority of the claimed aluminum alloy
over that of Kiyota when taken in combination with any of
Hochido, Yamamoto, Joshi, or Lee (EA7). We agree with
Appellants' response (RBr7) that Appellants are not required
to compare the claimed invention to subject matter that does
not exist in the prior art. This would be comparing the
claimed invention to itself. Nevertheless, the fact that
there is an improvement over the closest prior art is not
determinative of the obviousness of the claimed subject
matter.
Appellants argue that the claimed invention of an
aluminum film containing a rare earth element with an anodic
oxidation film thickness of greater than 200 Å outperforms the
aluminum alloys containing a rare earth element in Hochido,
Yamamoto, Joshi, and Lee, that has not been anodically
oxidized (RBr8).
- 18 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007