Appeal No. 1999-0778
Application No. 08/710,685
magnesium alloys in general, 2) calcium, barium and strontium,
alone or in any combination, in amounts of 0.1 to 10 wt%, and
3) less than 10 wt% (which includes zero) of zinc and six
other corrosion resistant metals, alone or in any combination.
Even the appellants’ narrowest claim (21) encompasses the use
of either AZ 91 or AM 60 alloy, 0.4 to 3 wt% calcium, and up
to 2 wt% of barium and/or strontium, and does not require the
zinc used in the relied-upon example in the declaration.
Because the appellants have not established that the ‘365
priority application indicates that the ingots or billets
encompassed by their claims invariably have no substantial
porosity, the appellants have not shown that the priority
application provides adequate written descriptive support for
their claimed invention. Consequently, the appellants are not
entitled to the filing date of this priority application.
Hence, WO ‘238 has not been antedated and, therefore, is
available as prior art. For this reason and because the
appellants have not challenged the examiner’s conclusion that
WO ‘238 establishes a prima facie case of obviousness, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection. Because our rationale
differs substantially from that advanced by the examiner, we
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007