Appeal No. 1997-4283
Application No. 08/342,695
which are all inclusive of the amount of strontium recited in
claim 2. Moreover, the applied prior art references, namely
Latkowski, Kurofuchi and Yonezawa, teach employing the amount
of zirconium recited in claim 3. Thus, it would have been
prima facie obvious to employ workable or optimum proportions
of strontium and/or zirconium in the aluminum alloy described
or suggested in the applied prior art. See In re Malagari,
499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Appellants also argue that we overlooked the sufficiency
of the Koch declaration in rebutting the prima facie cases
established by the examiner. However, we are not persuaded of
any error on our part for the reasons set forth at pages 5 and
6 of our earlier decision. We find that appellants have not
evinced either directly or indirectly that the claimed entire
concentration ranges of Magnesium and Manganese are shown to
be critical. See In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ
289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Nor have appellants evinced that the
showing limited to a single aluminum alloy having specific
proportions of silicon, magnesium, manganese, strontium,
aluminum, iron, copper, zinc and titanium is sufficient to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007