Appeal No. 2002-1274
Application No. 09/153,309
the alloy, a zirconium alloy composition having a general formula
that overlaps the claimed formula. Appellants also acknowledge
that Dandliker exemplifies an amorphous zirconium alloy within
the scope of the appealed claims (see page 10 of Brief, third
paragraph), and appellants have not challenged the examiner's
legal conclusion that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to perform the die casting process as
taught by Scruggs et al., with the amorphous alloy taught by
Dandliker, because Dandliker teaches that said alloy exhibits
very high yield strength" (page 5 of Answer, first paragraph).
The sole argument advanced by appellants is that "cooling
faces are inevitably formed inside the product according to the
cited Scruggs et al patent" (page 7 of Brief, third paragraph).
Appellants contend that in accordance with the claimed method
"the molten metal is pressed in a press metal mold without
forming fitting cooling faces" (page 8 of Brief, second
paragraph).
It is well settled that when a claimed process reasonably
appears to be substantially the same as a process disclosed by
the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to prove that the
prior art process does not necessarily or inherently possess
characteristics attributed to the claimed process. In re Spada,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007