Appeal No. 2002-1401
Application No. 09/187/226
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 9 and claim 12
which depends therefrom.3
Claims 11, 19 and 20
The appellants’ claim 11, which depends from claim 9, and
independent claim 19 limit the difference in linear expansion
coefficient between the base material and the ceramic covering
layer.
Premkumar teaches that the coefficients of thermal expansion
of his metal matrix composites approach or match that of alumina
(col. 8, lines 46-51). Consequently, the coefficients of thermal
expansion of these metal matrix composites approach or match that
of the admitted prior art covering layer made of alumina
(specification, page 1, lines 32-33). Hence, the appellants’
argument that the recited linear expansion coefficient
relationship is not suggested by the applied prior art is not
well taken (brief, pages 15-17).
We therefore affirm the rejection of claims 11, 19 and 20
(which depends from claim 19).4
3 The appellants state that claims 9 and 12 stand or fall
together (brief, page 6).
4 The appellants do not argue the limitation in claim 20
that the aluminum base material is pored into the container
together with silicon lumps. Because this claim is in product-
by-process form, the patentability of the claimed invention is
determined based on the product itself, not on the method of
making it. See In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964,
966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). It reasonably appears that Premkumar’s
Page 6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007