Appeal No. 2001-2449
Application No. 08/637,802
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. As correctly argued
by the examiner (Answer, page 7) and admitted on page 1 of
appellant’s Reply Brief, Rateau teaches the addition of germanium
in amounts that substantially overlap those required by the claims
(see claim 1 vs. Rateau, page 3, ll. 3-4). Furthermore, Rateau
teaches addition of the germanium to harden a silver-copper alloy
while the alloy of Bernhard comprises predominantly silver and
copper, with only small amounts of silicon, boron, zinc, and tin
(Bernhard, col. 2, ll. 24-29). Due to the similarities in the
alloy compositions and similar uses of Rateau and Bernhard, it
would have been expected by one of ordinary skill in the art that
the addition of germanium would be beneficial for the advantage of
improved hardness. See In re Vaeck, 947 F.2d 488, 493, 20 USPQ2d
1438, 1442 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As correctly stated by the examiner
(Answer, page 9), appellant has not provided any factual basis for
the allegation that it is “well known” that the addition of an
alloying metal to a base metal composition which contains other
additives may not necessarily have the same result as the addition
of the same alloying metal to the base metal alone (see the Brief,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007