Appeal No. 2004-1032 Page 3
Application No. 09/835,510
reversible error on the part of the examiner. Since we agree
with the examiner’s conclusion of obviousness as set forth in the
answer, we will affirm the examiner’s rejection. We offer the
following for emphasis.
Appellants state that “[t]he claims stand together” (brief,
page 4). Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the representative
claim on which we decide this appeal. See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7
and 8)(2002).
While AbuJudom teaches a shape memory alloy that includes
nickel (Ni), titanium (Ti) and hafnium (Hf) as primarily focused
upon by the examiner in the answer and appellants in the brief,
AbuJudom also discloses that the alloy can include one or more of
ten other elements including copper in addition to nickel in the
alloy. Thus, AbuJudom furnishes the requisite suggestion to use
another metal, including copper in place of a portion of the
nickel in a hafnium, titanium and nickel alloy to form a
quaternary (nickel, copper, titanium and hafnium) alloy with a
reasonable expectation of success in so doing. See, e.g., column
3, line 65 through column 4, line 41 of AbuJudom wherein in
addition to Ti and Hf, the use of nickel in combination with one
or more other recited elements, including copper, is described as
an option for use in the high temperature shape memory alloy.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007