Appeal No. 2005-0567
Application 10/280,391
aluminum, copper, magnesium, titanium and zirconium which elements are found in the heat
resistant alloys of Sekino. We are of the opinion that this disclosure provides substantial
evidence in support of the position that one of ordinary skill in this art would thus have had a
reasonable expectation of success in welding the butt surfaces of tubing prepared from the heat
resistant alloys of Sekino by the method of Hummel, which is all that is required to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness, rebuttable by appellants. We are of the view that appellants’
arguments here do not constitute effective rebuttal argument. See O’Farrell, supra; Dow Chem.,
supra; Keller, supra.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in Sekino alone and as combined with Stalker, with
Fried and with Hummel with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for
nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims
1 through 15 would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
- 18 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007