Appeal 2007-1529
Application 10/385,722
Claims 1-7, 23, 25-29
Appellants do not present separate arguments for dependent claims 2-
7, 23, and 25-29. Therefore, we select claim 1 as the representative claim on
which we decide this appeal with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1-7, 23, and 25-29.
It is not disputed that EP ‘710 discloses or suggests a method for
making a magnesium alloy product that includes the steps of casting a
magnesium alloy including aluminum corresponding to the claimed amount,
subjecting the cast product to an elevated temperature treatment
corresponding to the claimed solution treatment, and then subjecting the so-
treated material to forging treatment. Rather, Appellants maintain that EP
‘710, alone or in combination with the other applied references, does not
teach the claimed crystal grain sizes and the use of two forging steps in an
alloy product formation method.
The Examiner, on the other hand, contends that EP ‘710 discloses that
the crystal grain size should be below 300 µm and that lower crystal grain
sizes are associated with better formability properties for the alloy (Answer
5). Moreover, the Examiner maintains that EP ‘901 further suggests cast
grain sizes of no more than 30 µm for a substantially similar alloy
composition as employed in EP ‘710. Id. In addition, the Examiner has
determined that Kojima discloses grain sizes of 10 µm or less are especially
desirable in that superplastic or high formability properties result when the
grain sizes of a magnesium aluminum alloy are in that range. Id. From the
combined teachings of these applied references, the Examiner takes the
position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013