Appeal No. 2007-1530
Application 10/095,112
metal nitride, metal carbide, glass, ceramic, polymeric materials, and combinations
thereof” (col. 11, ll. 49-54).
We find that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that using Pyzik’s ceramic-metal composite material to make a disk substrate saves
weight in two ways in comparison conventional aluminum substrates. First, using
a ceramic-metal composite material that has a higher specific stiffness than does
aluminum permits the substrate to be made thinner, thereby reducing the weight of
the substrate even if the composite material has the same density as aluminum (i.e.,
2.7 g/cc). Second, an additional weight reduction of up to 4% can be achieved by
using a composite material that is less dense than aluminum, e.g., a composite
having a density at the low end of the preferred density range of about 2.58 to
about 2.7 g/cc (col. 7, ll. 44-45).
Pyzik does not elaborate on the cost savings that are allegedly achieved
using the composite material instead of pure aluminum (col. 3, ll. 20-23). We are
therefore unable to determine whether the cost savings represent a lower materials
costs, cost savings realized by using the disclosed process to form the disk
substrates, or both.
The Pyzik patent was issued by the Examiner in 428/539.5 (i.e., Class 428,
Subclass 539.5).5 Class 428, which is entitled “Stock Material or Miscellaneous
Articles,”
5 As will appear, it is not necessary to address the locations in which the
patent was cross-referenced, namely, 428/548; 428/551; 428/551; 428/552;
428/553; 428/554; 501/87; 501/93; and 501/96. Class 501 is entitled “Composites:
(Continued on next page.)
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013