Appeal No. 2002-1401
Application No. 09/187/226
through no more than routine experimentation. See In re Boesch,
617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller,
220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Hence, we affirm the rejection of claims 13 and 14.5
Claims 1-6, 25 and 26
The examiner argues that Premkumar “substantially” shows the
claimed invention except for the step of pressurizing the
reinforcing material (answer, page 4). Actually, that step is
disclosed in Premkumar’s claim 8.
The appellants’ independent claims 1 and 3 require that all
of the recited steps are carried out in the same container. The
examiner has not explained how Premkumar and Young would have
fairly suggested this feature to one of ordinary skill in the
art. Consequently, we reverse the rejection of these claims and
dependent claims 2, 4-6, 25 and 26.
Claims 7 and 10
Claims 7 and 10 require that molten aluminum base material
is poured into a container together with silicon lumps. The
examiner argues, in view of Premkumar’s disclosure of an
aluminum-silicon alloy matrix material (col. 2, lines 42-44),
that “whether the silicon is incorporated into the base material
5 The appellants state that claims 13 and 14 stand or fall
together (brief, page 6).
Page 8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007