Appeal 2007-0735
Application 10/821,023
copper instead of nickel, the reference explicitly teaches that “[t]he choice of
the fraying faces on the multi-layer brazing alloys can be either Cu or Ni”
(col. 8, ll. 7-8). This preference for copper over nickel is not seen as a
teaching away from Ti in the reference multi-layer bonding foil.
As for the Examiner’s separate § 103 rejection of claim 13 over
Chang in view of Cusano, we totally agree with the Examiner that it would
have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the Cusano
disclosure, to provide the bonding materials in particulate form. Also,
Appellants’ Reply Brief does not address the Examiner’s citation of the
acknowledgement made in the Amendment filed on October 3, 2005,
namely, “it is well known to those skilled in the art to apply the bonding
agent/brazing filler metal in the form of foil or in the form of particulate”
(Amend. 5, ll. 10-11).
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by the
Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013