Appeal No. 2002-1401
Application No. 09/187/226
The examiner has not established that FR ‘878 would have
fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, using the
disclosed adhesion layer with a different substrate, i.e.,
Premkumar’s aluminum nitride/aluminum composite rather than the
FR ‘878 aluminum or aluminum alloy. Also, the examiner has
provided no explanation as to why FR ‘878 would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to use an adhesion layer containing
5% nickel.
The examiner, therefore, has not carried the burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of the aluminum
nitride/aluminum base composite material claimed in the
appellants’ claims 21, 22 and 24. Accordingly, we reverse the
rejection of these claims.
New ground of rejection
Claims 21, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as the originally-filed specification fails to
provide adequate written descriptive support for the claimed
invention.
The appellants’ claim 21, and claims 22 and 24 which depend
therefrom, require an intermediate layer comprising about
5% nickel. The specification, however, discloses “an underlayer
consisting of nickel containing aluminum of approx. 5 % in weight
(Ni-5 wt% Al)” (page 13, lines 15-17 and page 14, lines 32-34).
Page 12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007