Appeal No. 2004-0109
Application 09/324,549
aluminum lithium alloys encompassed by appealed claim 19, which have the capability of
attaining the yield strength and fracture toughness properties when worked by any process that
can confer such properties. Furthermore, with respect to those claimed and prior art aluminum
lithium alloys which have a slight overlap with respect to the weight percent ranges of Cu and Li,
or wherein the upper and lower ends of the Li range are close, on this record, we determine that,
prima facie, one of ordinary skill in this would have reasonably expected that such claimed
aluminum alloys would have the same properties as the aluminum lithium alloys of the
references in each instance. Indeed, each of the references address the contributions to the
aluminum lithium alloys made by Cu and Li as we found above. Accordingly, one of ordinary
skill in this art routinely following the teachings of the references would have arrived at the
claimed aluminum alloys without recourse to appellants’ specification. See generally, In re
Peterson, 3156 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Geisler,
116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997), citing In re Malagari, 499 F.2d
1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974); Haynes Int’l, Inc. v. Jessop Steel Co., 8 F.3d
1573, 1576-77, 1577 n.3, 28 USPQ2d 1652, 1654-55, 1655 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575, 1577-78, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); Titanium Metals Corp. of
America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775,783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985); 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).
Accordingly, since a prima facie case of obviousness has been established over each of
Rioja ‘792 and ‘859, we have again evaluated all of the evidence of obviousness and
nonobviousness based on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to the weight of
appellants’ arguments in the brief and reply brief and the evidence in the specification as relied
on in the brief and reply brief. See generally, In re Johnson, 747 F.2d 1456, 1460, 223 USPQ
1260, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Appellants submit that the groups of aluminum lithium alloys of each of Rioja ‘792 and
‘859 set forth above do not reflect the actual teachings of the references to those of ordinary skill
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007