Ex Parte Taylor - Page 6




               Appeal No. 2005-1439                                                                                                   
               Application No. 09/943,987                                                                                             


               appellant has failed to point to any evidence in the record which establishes that the claimed                         
               ranges are indeed critical.  See In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA                             
               1965) (arguments in the brief do not take the place of evidence in the record).                                        
                       We further note that the appellant's claim 5 is directed to a master alloy for combining                       
               with gold.  Diamond also indicates that the disclosed alloys may be made as master alloys to be                        
               mixed with gold.  See col. 2, lines 24-25; compare appellant's specification, p. 9.  Thus, one of                      
               ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the alloy recited in claim 2 of Diamond                           
               could have been made as a master alloy and then mixed with gold.  Working backwards to                                 
               calculate the amounts of silver, copper and cobalt in the master alloy used to make the alloy of                       
               claim 2, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the master alloy contains                         
               60.8% silver, 29.28% copper and 8% cobalt, amounts which clearly fall within the ranges of                             
               silver, copper and cobalt recited in the appellant's claim 5.  Cf. Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 267, 191                      
               USPQ at 100 (the disclosure in the prior art of any value within a claimed range is an                                 
               anticipation of the claimed range).                                                                                    
                       For the reasons set forth above, the appellant has failed to rebut the prima facie case of                     
               obviousness set forth by the examiner.  See In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ                              
               785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) ("[a]fter a prima facie case of obviousness has been established, the                        
               burden of going forward shifts to the applicant").  Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 under 35                       
               U.S.C.                                                                                                                 
               § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Diamond is affirmed.  Since the patentability of claims 2-6                        

                                                                 6                                                                    





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007