Appeal No. 2002-2274
Application No. 08/387,158
page 22). This argument is not persuasive for the reason given
above regarding the rejection of claim 39.
Accordingly, we conclude that the alloy claimed in the
appellants’ claim 66 would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art over Linder and the prior art applied therewith.
Rejections over Sakano and
the prior art applied therewith
All of the appellants’ claims require an alloy containing at
least 0.11% indium. As indicated by the following disclosure,
Sakano uses less than 0.1% indium (col. 2, lines 24-39):
It must be added that an alloy containing
0.1 percent or more of indium, or an alloy formed by
adding zinc simultaneously with the said quantity of
induim [sic], incurs a relatively high rate of self-
corrosion when it is used as a galvanic anode, and its
galvanic current efficiency does not exceed the range
of 50 to 60 percent in the case wherein aluminum
material of ordinary purity has been used in its
alloying.
The aluminum alloy anode of the present invention
containing less than 0.1 percent of indium as described
above has a reduced quantity of added indium, which is
a relatively high-priced metal, and not only affords,
thereby, economy in cost, but also affords improvement
of anode characteristics, particularly substantial
improvement of galvanic current efficiency, which is
highly advantageous in practical uses.
In response to the appellants’ argument that Sakano teaches
away from an alloy having an indium content of more than 0.1 wt%
(brief, page 9), the examiner argues (answer, pages 7-8):
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007