Appeal No. 2004-1144
Application No. 09/584,765
claim 33 but which also are not specifically disclosed in the
appellant’s specification. There is simply nothing in the
specification which would reasonably convey to those skilled in
the art that the appellant was in possession of such particular
intermetallic alloys as of the application filing date.
Similar criticisms and arguments have been made by the
examiner and the appellant concerning the negative limitations
recited in dependent claims 29, 32, 44, 47, 59 and 62. For
reasons analogous to those set forth above and in the answer, the
appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error on the
examiner’s part in rejecting these claims under the first
paragraph of section 112.
In light of the foregoing, we also hereby sustain the
examiner’s section 112, first paragraph, rejection of claims 29,
32, 33, 44, 47, 59 and 62 for failing to satisfy the written
description requirement of the statute.
As for the section 103 rejection of independent claim 33 and
certain of the claims which depend therefrom, the appellant
argues that Suzuki contains no teaching or suggestion of an
intermetallic alloy which contains aluminum above 2 atomic
percent much less which contains at least 35 atomic percent
aluminum as required by the rejected claims. This argument is
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007