Appeal No. 2004-1340
Application No. 09/585,061
25, 2004, pages 2-4.) The examiner, on the other had, alleges
that “[w]hether the semi-solid slurry is called as ‘slurry’ or
‘slurry billet’ is no thing [sic] more than a personal
preference.” (Answer, page 7.)
We cannot agree with the examiner. The specification makes
it clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that the term
“slurry billet” refers to a slug. (See, e.g., page 1, lines 19-
24; page 27, line 18 to page 28, line 3; Figure 14.) By
contrast, Brauer merely teaches a “semisolid slurry 68.”
Nothing in Brauer indicates that the “semisolid slurry 68” is a
slug. Because the examiner offers no evidence or scientific
reasoning on why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to form a “slurry billet” in Brauer, we cannot affirm
the examiner’s rejection.
For these reasons, we reverse the examiner’s rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of appealed claims 1 through 19, 24
through 26, and 31 through 38 as unpatentable over Brauer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007