Appeal No. 2002-2274
Application No. 08/387,158
rejection of claim 39, Linder would have fairly suggested, to one
of ordinary skill in the art, including 0.11 wt% indium in the
alloy.
The alloy claimed in the appellants’ claim 45, therefore,
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over
Linder in view of the prior art applied therewith.
Claim 66
JP ‘128 discloses an aluminum alloy sacrificial anode
containing zinc and indium and teaches that 0.02-0.2 wt% Ce acts
toward preventing pitting corrosion and increases the electric
quantity (pages 5 and 7).
The appellants argue that Linder, Apostolos, the appellants’
admitted prior art, JP ‘683, JP ‘637 and JP ‘128, in combination,
fail to teach or suggest an alloy which contains about 20 to
about 50 wt% zinc and from 0.11 to about 0.6 wt% indium (brief,
page 20). Linder, however, discloses that the alloy can contain
about 20 wt% zinc (col. 1, lines 23-24). As discussed above
regarding the rejection of claim 39, Linder would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, including
0.11 wt% indium in the alloy.
The appellants argue that the transition term “consisting
essentially of” excludes Linder’s 0.01-1.0 wt% manganese (brief,
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007