Appeal 2007-2359
Application 90/006,951
reason. We do not accord significant weight to Timsit's vague and general
teaching compared to the more specific disclosures of Reiso, Bichsel, and
the EP/WO publications.11
Based on the foregoing, the preponderance of the evidence, favors
patentability of the claimed subject matter over the applied prior art.
Accordingly, we conclude that, on the present record, the Examiner has not
shown that it would have been obvious to modify Reiso alloys 6 or 16 by
adding Mn in the amounts required by the Alcan claims.
As none of the other references relied on by the Examiner as evidence
of obviousness address the obviousness of adding Mn to AlMgSi alloys, we
need not consider them further.
D. Summary
In view of the record and the foregoing considerations, it is
ORDERED that the Examiner's rejection of claims 1–5, 7–13,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings of Reiso and
either WO95/06759 or EP 0,716,716 B1 is REVERSED;
FURTHER ORDERED that the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1–5, 7–13, and 15–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined
teachings of Reiso, Timsit, and either WO95/06759 or EP 0,716,716 B1 is
REVERSED;
11 Alcan's objection that Timsit, which is concerned with brazing, makes no
sense in the extrusion art is understandable (why would one extrude an
article comprised of two parts brazed together?) but misdirected. We
understand the Examiner to rely on Timsit's statements as evidence that the
effect of Mn on AlMgSi alloys was known and considered to be general.
For the reasons given, we find that Timsit is not persuasive.
24
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013