Appeal 2007-2359
Application 90/006,951
91. The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to apply the
thermal treatments taught by EP and WO to Reiso alloys 6 and 16 because
they would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining
ingots having the improved properties taught by the references. (Answer
at 7–8.)
92. The Examiner finds that Timsit teaches that it was known to improve
the extrudability of aluminum alloys by adding Mn and excess Si in
combination. (Answer at 8; (Timsit at 3:38–45.)
93. The Examiner reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
applied the teachings of Timsit regarding the improved properties arising
from the addition of Mn and excess Si to aluminum alloys, to the alloys
taught by Reiso, in particular, alloys 6 and 16. The Examiner applies the
same reasoning applied to the teachings of the EP/WO and concludes that
the claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Reiso,
Timsit, and the EP/WO references. (Answer at 9–10.)
94. With regard to the limitations of claim 14, namely, that the
homogenized ingot be cooled to 425°C or less at a rate of at least 150°C per
hour, the Examiner finds that Marchive teaches quenching at rates between
20 and 500°C per hour at page 8. (Answer at 10 and at 11.)
95. The Examiner reasons that Marchive teaches a broad range that
encompasses or overlaps the range recited in claim 13, and that in the
absence of a new or unexpected result, modification to select a value within
the claimed range would have been obvious. (Answer at 10 and 11.)
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013