Appeal 2006-0009
Reexamination Control 90/005,589
Patent 5,940,464
1 articles produced therefrom.” Sabol, col. 2, ll. 8-4 and col. 2, ll. 54-63.
2 Based on these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
3 understood that the amount of tin (as well as an amount of a third alloying
4 element) in the disclosed alloy is related to the “desired corrosion
5 resistance.”
6 The Board correctly found that “nothing in Sabol suggests that an
7 amount of tin as low as 0.6% would not provide the ‘desired corrosion
8 resistance.’ ” Decision 7. This is especially true where the desired corrosion
9 resistance can also be adjusted by adding an amount of a third alloying
10 element. The Appellant has not directed us to any evidence establishing
11 otherwise.
12 The Appellant also argues that the Board incorrectly interpreted the
13 phrase “up to 1.5 percent tin” as including no tin. See Decision 6 (agreeing
14 with the examiner that “up to” includes zero). The Appellant argues that the
15 alloys disclosed in Sabol must contain some amount of tin to provide the
16 “desired corrosion resistance.” See Request 2.
17 The Appellant did not present this argument in its Brief. Therefore, it
18 is not entitled to consideration on rehearing. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1)
19 (2006). Suffice it to say that the Board found that Sabol would have
20 suggested an alloy having some amount of tin, i.e., an amount of tin within
21 the claimed range of 0.2% to 0.6% tin. To the extent that the Board did find
22 that the range of tin disclosed in Sabol includes no tin, it is not necessary to
23 address this finding on rehearing.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013