Appeal 2007-0735
Application 10/821,023
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons set
forth in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the § 103 rejection of claims 1-12 over Chang. Like
Appellants, Chang discloses a bonding assembly comprising at least one
nickel foil layer and at least one titanium foil layer, e.g., a foil made up of
discrete layers of titanium and nickel, such as a foil of Ni/Ti/Ni (see
Abstract). Also, Chang teaches that the brazing or bonding foils are useful
for brazing components such as Ti and iron-based alloys, which include steel
(see col. 5, ll. 41-43). In addition, Chang expressly discloses that the
Ni/Ti/Ni bonding composite can be bonded to stainless steel (col. 6,
ll. 52-55), and a five-layer bonding composite comprising Ni/Ti/Ni can bond
two sheets of Ti (col. 6, ll. 58-60). Accordingly, since Chang teaches that a
bonding assembly comprising the presently claimed at least one nickel foil
layer and at least one titanium foil layer can be bonded to stainless steel and
titanium, separately, we fully concur with the Examiner that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the bonding assembly of
Chang to adhere a stainless steel part to a titanium part. The motivation and
requisite reasonable expectation of success arises from the fact that it was
known in the art that the claimed bonding filler material comprising at least
one nickel foil layer and at least one titanium foil layer bonds well to both
stainless steel and titanium.
Appellants contend that Chang relates to non-analogous art since
“[t]he roll bonding method taught by Chang to form a multi-layer alloy strip
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013