Appeal No. 2004-2111
Application No. 09/535,550
claim. As a consequence, we hereby sustain the examiner’s
section 103 rejection of claims 2-4, 6, 8-13, 16-25, 29 and 34 as
being unpatentable over JP ‘740.
The examiner’s section 103 rejection of claims 2 and 3 as
being unpatentable over JP ‘410 cannot be sustained. This is
because, as in analogous circumstances described earlier, the
carbon concentration ranges of claims 2 and 3 (i.e., 0.4 to 2.0
weight percent and 0.5 to 0.6 weight percent respectively) are
far outside the range disclosed by this reference (i.e., 0.1
weight percent or less). Sebek, id.
We hereby sustain, however, the examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claims 4-9, 14-18, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29 and 34 as being
unpatentable over JP ‘410. Based on previously expressed
rationale, it is our determination that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of unpatentability which the
appellant has failed to successfully rebut with either argument
or evidence. As an example, the appellant argues that the
reference under consideration contains no teaching or suggestion
of the subject matter defined by claims 17, 18 or 20. This is
incorrect. The JP ‘410 reference expressly teaches alloys having
a 2% niobium concentration and a 3% cobalt concentration (e.g.,
see the Abstract), and claims 18 and 20 respectively recite these
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007