Appeal No. 2004-0109
Application 09/324,549
In order to consider the threshold issue of whether the claimed aluminum alloys as
defined by the appealed claim 19 would have been prima facie obvious over the aluminum alloys
taught by Rioja ‘792 or Rioja ‘859, we must first interpret the language of appealed claim 19 by
giving the claim terms their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the written
description provided in appellants’ specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in this art, see, e.g., In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2006 (Fed. Cir.
2002); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Herz, 537 F.2d 5649,
551, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976), without reading into these claims any limitation or
particular embodiment which is disclosed in the specification. See Zletz, supra; In re Priest, 582
F.2d 33, 37, 199 USPQ 11, 15 (CCPA 1978).
We determine from the plain language thereof that appealed independent claim 19
encompasses “[a]n aluminum alloy” that consist essentially of at least of the characterizing
element “aluminum” (Al), and the stated elements, zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), magnesium (Mg),
lithium (Li), silicon (Si), wherein the stated elements are present in an amount falling within the
weight percent range for the respective element, regardless of the amount(s) of any other
element(s) that can be included therein by reason of the transitional term “consisting essentially
of,” wherein the “aluminum alloy” is at least capable of attaining a yield strength (L) above
80 ksi and a fracture toughness above about 33 ksi√inch without limitation on the method or
steps thereof by which the alloy is processed to attain such properties. With respect to the
claimed ranges, we interpret the range of “less than 0.1 wt % silicon” to include “zero” as a lower
limit.
We find no express limitation in appealed claim 19 specifying the amount of “aluminum”
in the claimed “aluminum alloy,” but for purposes of this appeal determine that a reasonable,
conditional interpretation of claim 19 is that the claimed “aluminum alloy” contains some
amount of aluminum, however small, noting that the written description in the specification
discloses that “aluminum” along with “incidental impurities” form the “balance” of the
“aluminum alloy” (specification, page 4, lines 24-25; cf. Rioja ‘792 claim 1). Thus, the
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007