Appeal No. 2001-1306
Application No. 08/939,762
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a method
for brazing beryllium-aluminum alloy members to form a beryllium-
aluminum alloy assembly, including use of a specific brazing flux
and subsequent coating of the assembly with alumina-titania (Brief,
pages 3-4). A copy of illustrative independent claim 1 is attached
as an Appendix to this decision.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Wallace et al. (Wallace) 3,951,328 Apr. 20, 1976
Daver 3,971,657 July 27, 1976
Kazakos et al. (Kazakos) 5,473,418 Dec. 05, 1995
Osame et al. (Osame) 5,697,045 Dec. 09, 1997
Claims 1, 2 and 4-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Osame in view of Wallace (Answer, page 3).1
Claims 9-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Osame in view of Wallace, Daver and Kazakos (Answer, page 3).
We reverse all of the rejections on appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Brief, Reply Brief, and as discussed below.
1Without specifically identifying the rejection(s), the
examiner states: “claims 1-2 and 4-14 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). This rejection ....” The problem with the
examiner’s statement, however, is that the final office action
contains more than one rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Nevertheless, since appellants have had due opportunity to
respond to each individual rejection (see the Brief and Reply
Brief), we will consider the rejections as set forth in the Final
Rejection dated Aug. 16, 1999, Paper No. 8.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007