Appeal No. 2004-0109
Application 09/324,549
same alloy, and in at least two examples, the alloy as worked attained a yield strength (L) above
about 80 ksi and a fracture toughness above about 33 ksi√inch (see col. 4, lines 54-66).
We find that one of ordinary skill in this art routinely following these teaching of Rioja
‘859 would have reasonably arrived at aluminum alloys which are capable of attaining the
properties taught by the reference. Thus, one of ordinary skill in this art can select the elements
from among those disclosed, in any amount within the weight percent range taught for each
element, to form an aluminum alloy that is capable of attaining yield strength and fracture
toughness when processed as disclosed in Rioja ‘859.
In comparing the claimed aluminum alloys encompassed by appealed claim 19 with the
aluminum-lithium alloys disclosed by Rioja ‘859, we find with respect to each of the two groups
of alloys in the reference, that the claimed weight percent ranges, including the weight percent
ranges disclosed for Zr, Fe, Mn and Ag which can be present, either fall within or encompass the
weight percent ranges in the reference, except for the amount of Cu and Li. The claimed and
reference Cu weight percent ranges overlap in the first group of the reference alloys, and the
claimed Cu weight percent range falls within the Cu weight percent range in the second alloy
group of the reference. With respect to Li, the claimed weight percent range overlaps the
reference weight percent range is at the lower end of the ranges, that is, “0.1” in appealed claim
19, and “0.2” in each of the first alloy group of Rioja ‘859. With respect to the second alloy
group of the reference, the lower end of the Li range, that is, “0.5,” is close to the upper end of
the claimed Li range, that is, “0.4.” Furthermore, Rioja ‘859 teaches that the processes of
working the aluminum alloys disclosed therein is capable of attaining yield strength and fracture
toughness with the disclosed alloys within ranges which overlap with the ranges for these
properties in appealed claim 19.
We find that in each of the groups of alloys of Rioja ‘792 and ‘859 set forth above,
aluminum and incidental impurities form the remainder of the alloy in the same manner as in
appealed claim 19 as we interpreted this claim above.
Therefore, we find that each of Rioja ‘792 and ‘859 provides substantial evidence
establishing that, prima facie, one of ordinary skill in this art routinely working within the
teachings of these references would have arrived at aluminum lithium alloys falling within the
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007