Appeal 2007-2359
Application 90/006,951
103. Alcan finds that EP/WO further emphasizes the high-Si-content by the
preference for alloys containing at least 0.3% excess Si. (Reply Br. at 3; EP
at 3:27–29.)
104. With regard to the rejections based further on Timsit, Alcan argues
that the teachings of Timsit make no sense in the extrusion art. (Br. at 17.)
105. With respect to the rejections of claim 14 based further on Marchive,
Alcan argues only that Marchive does not supply what is lacking in the other
references, and that those rejections should be reversed for that reason.
(Br. at 17–18.)
C. Discussion
At the outset, we commend the respective briefs filed by Alcan and
the Examiner. Findings of Fact are generally supported with specific
citations. Side issues have generally been kept to a minimum and the focus
has remained on the arguments for and against patentability. The reasons for
and against combining various teachings are generally set out clearly. In
short, the briefs have assisted our study of the case and enhanced our
understanding of the issues.
The central and dispositive issue in this appeal is whether a person
having ordinary skill in the art would have applied the teachings of Reiso
and EP/WO regarding the addition of Mn to AlMgSi alloys to alloys 6 or 16
of Reiso. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the preponderance of
the evidence indicates that an ordinary worker would not have added Mn to
alloys 6 or 16 of Reiso because they would not have recognized those alloys
as having a problem that Mn addition would have solved.
20
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013