Appeal No. 2002-1274
Application No. 09/153,309
specific strength, excellent workability and stable amorphous
forming ability" (page 5 of Brief, second paragraph).
Appealed claims 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Scruggs in view of Dandliker.
Appellants submit at page 6 of the Brief that "[r]ejected
claims 6 and 9 are to be considered separately." However, the
ARGUMENT section of appellants' Brief fails to present an
argument that is reasonably specific to either of the appealed
claims. Accordingly, claim 9 stands or falls together with
claim 6.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in the Answer, and we add the following
primarily for emphasis.
Appellants' do not dispute the examiner's factual
determination that Scruggs, like appellants, discloses a method
of making a zirconium system amorphous alloy by molding under
pressure, and at a temperature well above the melting point of
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007