Appeal 2007-1803
Application 10/716,512
vanadium whereas the claim 1 composition differs only by (1) having a
maximum of 0.35 wt% carbon and (2) lacking vanadium. As fully explained
by the Examiner, it would have been obvious to modify this third example
steel by lowering the carbon content to values within the claim 1 range and
by eliminating the vanadium since Robelet expressly teaches modifying
these constituents in this manner (col. 3, ll. 1-7 and 36-40).
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the here
claimed ranges are critical and therefore are not prima facie obvious (Br.
15). While the Specification teaches adding various amounts of certain
constituents in order to achieve particular results, the applied prior art
likewise teaches or would have suggested adding constituent amounts in
order to achieve desirable results. For example, like Appellants' steel
(Abstract at Specification 32), Robelet's steel is designed to be useful for the
manufacture of a separable mechanical component (Robelet Abstract).
Moreover, as correctly indicated by the Examiner (Answer 10-11), none of
the claim 1 ranges have been shown by Appellants to yield unexpected
results in comparison to the closest prior art which is Robelet.
For the above stated reasons, it is our ultimate determination that the
reference evidence applied by the Examiner establishes a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claim 1 which the Appellants have failed to
successfully rebut with argument or evidence of nonobviousness. See In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 1-7 as being
unpatentable over Robelet in view of Vander Voort and Uno.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013