Appeal 2007-2359
Application 90/006,951
The Counterarguments
96. Alcan does not appear to argue for the separate patentability of any
claims relative to a given rejection.
97. Rather, regarding the combined teachings of Reiso and the WO/EP
references, Alcan argues that the teachings of Reiso to add Mn to aluminum
alloys do not apply to aluminum alloys 6 and 16. (Br. at 10.)
98. Alcan supports its arguments with citations to Reiso, Bichsel, and the
Declaration of Parson. (Br. at 10 ff.)
99. Alcan argues against the rejection based on the alleged obviousness of
adding Mn to enhance the β- to α-AlFeSi transformation in a similar manner,
urging that the record does not support the equivalence of the high-Si, high-
Mg alloys of the EP/WO references to the relatively low-Si and low-Mg
alloys 6 and 16 of Reiso. (Reply Brief filed 29 January 2007 ("Reply Br."),
at 3.)
100. Alcan finds that EP/WO require a Si-content of 0.60% or greater and
that there is no teaching regarding inventive alloys having less than
0.40 % Mg. (Reply Br. at 2.)
101. More particularly, Alcan finds that the teachings of the EP/WO
publications regarding the addition of Mn "is limited to a narrow range of Si
content that excludes Reiso alloys 6 and 16." (Reply Br. at 3.)
102. Moreover, according to Alcan, it is in the context of a teaching that
excess Si stabilizes the β-AlFeSi phase that has a detrimental effect on
extrudability and extrusion surface quality. (Reply Br. at 3, citing EP
at 3:18–21.)
19
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013