Appeal No. 2004-2111
Application No. 09/535,550
concentration embodiment encompassed by dependent claim 9. See
Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d at 1943, 51 USPQ2d at
1945-46. Similarly, the absence of tantalum in the alloys
disclosed by JP ‘051 fully corresponds to the 0% tantalum
concentration embodiment encompassed by claim 22.
For these reasons and those expressed in the answer, we also
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
unpatentability which the appellant has failed to successfully
rebut with argument or evidence vis-à-vis the section 103
rejection of claims 2, 4-26, 29 and 34 based on JP ‘051. It
follows that we hereby sustain the rejection of these claims as
being unpatentable over the aforementioned reference.
For reasons analogous to those discussed above, we are
convinced that the record of this appeal supports a prima facie
case of unpatentability with respect to the rejection of claims
2, 4-7, 10-16, 18, 20-26, 29 and 34 based on JP ‘673. We
perceive no merit in the appellant’s argument that claims 16 and
18 patentably distinguish over this reference. This is because
the reference expressly discloses vanadium and niobium values
(i.e., 3% and 2% respectively) for the alloys thereof which fully
correspond to values explicitly recited in these claims. See
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007