Appeal 2007-0735
Application 10/821,023
or foil made up of discrete layers uses a cold-rolling process without
annealing . . . [whereas] appellants teach a brazing method of forming a
component assembly in which a foil filler material is used” (principal Br. 6,
second para.) As noted by the Examiner, however, this argument is not
germane to the subject matter defined by the appealed claims. The appealed
claims define a component assembly, not a method, let alone, specifically, a
brazing method.
Appellants also emphasize that “Chang does not teach bonding of
stainless [steel] to titanium” (principal Br. 6, penultimate para.) However,
while this argument might be effective against a rejection under § 102, the
Examiner properly points out that the rejection is under § 103, and
Appellants have not presented any argument concerning why the relevant
disclosures of Chang would not have made it obvious to use Chang’s
bonding foil to bond stainless steel to titanium.
Appellants also maintain that “Chang conspicuously limits his
teachings to exclude brazing stainless steel to titanium” (principal Br. 6, last
para.). However, Appellants do not cite any specific disclosure in Chang to
support this argument, and our review of the reference finds no such
teaching relevant to the exclusion of bonding stainless steel to titanium.
Appellants also cite Chang at column 8, lines 7-13 for the argument
that “Chang teaches away from the use of titanium” (principal Br. 7, second
para.). However, although Chang discloses several advantages of using
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013