Appeal No. 2007-1530
Application 10/095,112
desirable in a disk substrate (col. 8, ll. 20-22). For density (having a downwardly
pointing arrow), the chart gives the value for aluminum as 2.7 and the value for
Al—B—C as “<3.” However, the Specification explains that “the Al—B—C
composite material can have a density of less than about 3 g/cc, preferably from
about 2.58 to 2.7 g/cc” (col. 7, ll. 45-46). We calculate that a composite material
having a density of 2.58 g/cc is about 4 per cent less dense than aluminum.4
The chart gives the electrical resistivity (which has a downward pointing
arrow) for aluminum as 10-5 ohm-cm and for Al—B—C as <10-3 ohm-cm,
respectively, which means that aluminum less resistive (and thus more conductive)
than Al—B—C by more than an order of magnitude.
After explaining that “specific stiffness” is a property of a material that
represents the resistance of a component to deflection by inertial loads generated
by accelerations and decelerations, Pyzik notes that the specific stiffness of the
Al—B—C composite material can be greater than about 8.3x106 m, preferably,
greater than about 14.3x106 m, wherein the specific stiffness has been normalized
by the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s2) (col. 7, l. 66 to col. 8, l. 8). Pyzik does
not give the specific stiffness value for pure aluminum.
Pyzik summarizes the properties of the Al—B—C composite material as
follows:
4 In contrast, Appellant’s Evidence Appendix states that the “specific
gravity” (sic, density) of the composite material is 49% of the value for the
aluminum alloy represented in the Evidence Appendix.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013