Appeal No. 2005-1354
Application No. 09/940,481
The various groups of claims set forth by appellants stand
or fall together (see paragraph bridging pages 5 and 6 of
principal brief).
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find that the
examiner's § 112, first paragraph, rejection is not well-founded.
However, we are in complete agreement with the examiner that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of the
applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's
§ 103 rejection.
We consider first the examiner's rejection under § 112,
first paragraph. It is the examiner's position that "[t]here is
no teaching to obtain the martensitic transformation start points
less than -186 and/or thermal coefficients of expansion 0.49x-6
to 0.7x-6" (page 4 of Answer, third paragraph). According to the
examiner, "[i]t is unclear why the examples (A to D) in pages 6-7
of the instant specification have different martensitic
transformation start points and thermal coefficients of expansion
since compositions of all examples are in the claimed ranges and
also complied with the claimed equations" (id.).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007