Appeal No. 2002-2274
Application No. 08/387,158
efficiency improvement cannot be recognized, and the efficiency
is lowered” (page 6).
The examiner argues that the ranges of the amounts of the
appellants’ components and those of JP ‘683 overlap (answer,
page 6). There is no overlap, however, between the JP ‘683
indium range which ends at 0.1 wt% and the appellants’ indium
range which begins at 0.11 wt%. For this reason and because the
examiner has not explained why, in view of the above-quoted
teaching in JP ‘683 regarding an indium content upper limit of
0.1 wt%, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by
JP ‘683 to use an indium content higher than 0.1 wt%, we reverse
the rejection of claims 63, 65 and 67.
New grounds of rejection
Claims 46, 47, 61, 63 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Linder in view of the appellants’
admitted prior art, Apostolos, and JP ‘683, JP ‘637 or JP ‘128.
As discussed above regarding the rejection of claim 45, from
which claims 46 and 47 depend, the alloy claimed in claim 45
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over
Linder in view of the appellants’ admitted prior art, Apostolos,
and JP ‘683, JP ‘637 or JP ‘128. Claims 46 and 47 each recite
amounts of zinc and indium which the alloy must contain. In both
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007