Appeal No. 2002-1609
Application 09/129,238
Although the examiner does not specifically address this
aspect of claim 13, the examiner groups this claim with claims
12, 15, 16, and 17 when making the determination that these
claims reflect commonly practiced techniques. Because appellants
do not challenge this statement made by the examiner, we sustain
the rejection of claim 13. Id.
f. Claim 19
Appellants argue that claim 19 sets forth a specific range
for nitrogen which is not disclosed in Fujinaga, and that
therefore claim 19 distinguishes over Fujinaga.
The examiner correctly finds that Fujinaga’s claim 1 recites
from 0.001 to 0.04% nitrogen, which is within appellants’
nitrogen range of from 0.0022 to 0.005%.
Hence, we agree with the rejection of claim 19.
g. Claims 14 and 21
On pages 5-7 of the brief, appellants set forth their
position to support their conclusion that the sheet claimed in
claims 14 and 21 is distinguishable from the sheets made in
Fujinaga. Appellants refer to data throughout their
specification in support thereof.
Beginning on page 6 of the answer, the examiner correctly
points out that claim 1 on page 12 of Fujinaga discloses an
aluminum content of 0.005% or less, and excludes Ti and Nb, and
therefore teaches the sheet set forth in appellants’ claims 14
and 21. (answer, pages 6-7). We also note that claim 1 of
Fujinaga also recites a nitrogen content of from .001 to .04
percent, which falls within appellants claimed range of less than
.006. Hence, absent convincing rebuttal evidence, we agree with
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007