Appeal No. 2002-2274
Application No. 08/387,158
admitted prior art; claims 35-38, 42, 45, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59,
60, 62, 64 and 66 over Linder or Sakano, in view of Apostolos,
the appellants’ admitted prior art, and JP ‘683, JP ‘128 or
JP ‘637; and claims 63, 65 and 67 over JP ‘683.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections over Linder and the prior art
applied therewith as to claims 33-45, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60,
62, 64 and 66 and reverse as to claims 46-48, 52, 55, 58 and 61,
reverse the rejections over Sakano and the prior art applied
therewith, and reverse the rejection over JP ’683. Under the
provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we enter new grounds of rejection
of claims 46, 47, 52, 55, 58, 61, 63, 65 and 67.1
The appellants state that the claims stand or fall in the
following groups: 1) claims 33, 34, 40, 41 and 44; 2) claims 46-
48, 52, 55, 58 and 61; 3) claims 39 and 43, 4) claims 35-38, 42,
45, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60 and 62; 5) claims 64 and 66; and
6) claims 63, 65 and 67 (brief, page 5). We therefore limit our
discussion regarding the affirmed rejections to one claim in each
group, i.e., claims 33, 39, 45 and 66. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d
1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR
1 No new rejection is made of claim 48 which requires that
the alloy contains about 0.2% In.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007