`”10:13 FAX 203 885 0297
`
`MAN LAPOINTE
`
`WWW
`¢>\§\O\ BACHMAN & LaPOlNTE, P.C.
`(KB
`\
`SPECIALIZINGININTELLECTUALPROPERI‘Y
`
`REGISTERED PATENT ATTORNEYS
`
`.
`
`'
`
`'
`
`SUITE 1201
`
`900 CHAPEL STREET
`NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT 06510-2802
`
`GREGORY P. MONTE
`BARRY L. KELMACHTER (ALSO VA BAR)
`GEORGE A. COURY (ALSO NY BAR)
`WLLUAM B. SLATE (ALSO CA AND DC BARS'
`Ross J. CHRISTIE (Also NY BAR)
`TiMO'n-TY J. Lunacru (ONLY PA BAR)
`
`I001
`
`MEEHONE (203) 777-6628
`FAX
`(203) 865-0297
`(203) 789-0582
`
`\p via Fax only
`
`(including this sheet)
`
`via Fax and Mail
`
`YOUR REF.: H “fl; (“0‘
`
`_
`
`*COmments:
`HI! Br: 015,6;1' ~
`{3 +14: Sianmfirel P056 '6! “1—K
`fl'H-eccquoi
`MpeoA Y5h€$
`Fa‘lcd 103v ~an
`abate—ke-Femwccot
`Pa-iflw‘v GPPUCaJ‘FQ/xr‘
`102136458 Cm” WC.
`“C “\M
`Md UMUSHNW‘D {2.4%
`WCLWK‘ V1041.
`
`. \<av€y\
`Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by telephone or fax and advise us If any pages are not readily legible or
`have not been received.
`
`The lnfon-natlon contained In this communication is confidential. may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute
`inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. Unauthorized use. disclosure or copying is
`strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.
`if you have received this communication in error, please notify us
`immediately and destroy this tranumittal.
`
`BACHMAN 8: LAPOINTE, P.C.
`
`TELEPHONE: (203) 777-6628
`FAX:
`(203) 8650297
`
`PAGE 112 ‘ RCVD AT 1211212006 10:15:15 A111 [Eastern Slandaid TimE] ' SVRlUSPTO-EFXRF-6127 * DNIS:2731051 " 0810:2011 865 0291’ DURATION (mm-ss):00-38
`
`
`
`09/11/08 11:27 FAX 203 885 0297 '
`
`BACEHAN LAPOIN'I'E
`
`RECEIVED
`OENTRALFAXCENTER
`
`@00‘
`
`- 559112005
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE
`BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
`// /fi5,&/7
`: 11/185,619
`: Wangen Lin et al.
`: July l9, 2005
`: 1725
`
`Confirmation No. 5656
`
`Appl. No.
`Applicant
`Filed
`TC/A.U.
`
`-
`
`Examiner
`
`: Rachel B. Beveridge
`
`Docket No.
`Customer No.
`
`085.10452—US—AA(00-749-3)
`:
`: $2237
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`APPEAL BRIEF
`
`I
`
`This is an appeal to the Board of Patent Appeals and
`
`Interferences from the final rejection of claims 7 - 14, dated March
`
`14. 2006. made by the Primary Examiner in Tech Center Art Unit 1725.
`
`REAL PARTY IN 'INTEREBT
`
`The real party in interest is United Technologies Corporation
`
`of Hartford, Connecticut.
`
`RELATED APPEALS AND INTERFERENCBS
`
`There are no other appeals or interferences known to-
`
`Appellants, Appellants’ legal representative, or assignee thch will
`
`directly affect or be directly affected by or have a bearing on the
`
`Board's decision in the pending appeal.
`
`PAGE 4R1 ' RCVD AT 911"1005 11:21:50 AM [Eastun DayfigmTune] ' SVEUSPTO-EFXRFWS ' “181738300 ' 6891103 866 0297 ' DURATION WNW“
`
`1
`
`
`
`'
`
`09/11/08 11:27 FAX 203 883 0297 '
`
`BACBMAN “POINTS
`
`@005
`
`STATUS OF CLAIMS
`
`Claims 1 - 6 have been previously cancelled. Claims '7 - 14 are
`
`pending in the application and are on appeal.
`
`A true copy of the claims on appeal are attached hereto as
`
`Appendix A .
`
`STATUS OF AMENDWS
`
`No amendment was filed subsequent to the final rejection.
`
`SUMMARY OF CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
`
`The present inwantion, as set forth in independent: claim 7,
`
`relates to a method for brazing an article comprising the steps of:
`
`(1) providing an article formed from a ferrous material;
`
`(2)
`
`applying a brazing material to said article formed from an alloy
`
`consisting essentially of from about 52.25 wt% to about 57.0 wt%
`
`silver.
`
`from about 38-.95 wtfix to about 43.0 wt% copper,
`
`from abOut
`
`0.5 wt% to about 5.5 wt% manganese, and up to about 2-5 wt% nickel;
`
`and (3) heating said article and said brazing material at a
`
`temperature in the range of from about 900°C to about 1050°C to: a
`
`time sufficient to melt said brazing material.
`
`See page 2,
`
`paragraph 0009,- also see page 3, paragraph 0015 of the
`
`specification .
`
`As set forth in claim 8,
`
`the heating step comprises heating
`
`said article and said brazing material at a temperature in the range
`
`PAGE 5m ' RCVDAT 911112006 11:27:50AM [Eastem DayfightTflnq ' SVEUSPTO‘EFXRFW‘ DNISWGO ' 680203 8550297' DURATIONWW“
`
`2
`
`
`
`09/11/08 guns Pu 203 563 0297"
`
`aacmm upoxm
`
`tacos
`
`of from about 950°C to about 1050°C.
`
`See page 3, paragraph 0015 of
`
`the Specification .
`
`Independent claim 9 is directed to a method for brazing an
`
`article comprising the steps of:
`
`(1) providing an article formed
`
`from a ferrous material;
`
`(2) applying a brazing material consisting
`
`of 56 wt% silver, 42 wt% copper, and 2-0 wt% manganese (see page 3,
`
`paragraph 0013 of the specification); and (3) heating said article
`
`and said brazing material at a temperature in the range of from
`
`about 900°C to about 1050°C for a time sufficient to melt said
`
`brazing material;
`
`See page 3, paragraph 0015 of the Specification.
`
`Independent claim 10 is directed to a method for brazing an
`
`article comprising the steps of:
`(1) providing an article formed
`from a ferrOus material;
`(2) applying a brazing material consisting .
`
`essentially of 0.5 to 5.5 wt% manganese with remaining camposition
`
`being proportional to 56 wt% silver, 42 wt% copper. and 2.0 wt%
`
`nickel
`
`(see page 3, paragraph 0013 of the specification); and (3)
`
`heating said article and said brazing material at a temperature in
`
`the range of from about 900°C to about 1050*: for a time sufficient
`
`to melt said brazing material.
`
`See page 3, paragraph 0015 of the
`
`specification.
`
`As set forth in claim 11, which depends from claim 7,
`
`the
`
`brazing material has a nickel content in the range of from abOut 1.5
`
`wt% to about 2.5 wt%.
`
`See page 2, paragraph 0012 of the
`
`specification.
`
`PRGE um'ncvnArmmons11zzlzsomtsaswnoayngmmner SVR'USPTO-EFXRFMB'OMSIW' csunos 8660297 ' DURATION (1105513246
`
`3
`
`
`
`09/14/03
`
`11:25 as; 203 863 0297‘
`
`new umxm
`
`.007
`
`As set forth in claim 12. which also depends frow claim 7,
`
`the
`
`brazing material has a manganese content in the range of from about
`
`1.0 wt% to about 5.5 wt%.
`specification,
`
`See page 2, paragraph 0012 of the
`
`As set forth in Claim 13, which also depends from claim 7,
`
`the
`
`article providing step Comprises providing an article formed from
`
`steel.‘ See page 3, paragraph 0015 of the specification.
`
`Independent claim 14 relates to a method for brazing an_artic1e
`
`comprising the steps of:
`
`(1) providing an article formed from
`
`stainless steel
`
`(see page 3, paragraph 0015 of the specification):
`
`(2) applying a brazing to said article formed from an alloy
`
`consisting essentially of from about 52.25 wt% to about 57.0 wt%
`
`-silver,
`
`from about 38.95 wt% to abOut 43.0 wt% copper,
`
`from about
`
`0.5 to '5.5 wt% manganese, and up to about 2.5 wt% nickel
`
`(see page
`
`2, paragraph 0012 of the specification); and (3) heating said
`
`article and said brazing material at a temperature in the range of
`
`from about 900°C to about 1050°C for a time sufficient to melt said
`
`brazing material
`
`(see page 3, paragraph 0015 of the specification.
`
`GROUNDS OF REJECTION TO BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL
`
`The grounds of rejection to be reviewed on appeal are as
`
`followsi
`
`(1) The rejection of claims 7 - 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over 0.8. Patent No. 2,303,272 to Haskell; and
`
`PAGEIIZi 'RCVDAT91119003 11:27:50“![EastemDay‘fightTmle]'SRUSPTO-EFXRFW'DMS:WWOSD:2038§6M9PDURMION (mm):0245
`
`4
`
`
`
`09/11/08
`
`11228 FAX 203 885 0297'
`
`BACIHAN LAPOINTE
`
`.008
`
`(2) The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Haskell
`
`in view of 0.3. Patent No. 2,138,638 to
`
`Leach .
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`II.
`
`The rejection of claims 7 - 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over U.s. Patent No. 2,303,272 to Haskell
`
`(a) Independent claims 7, 9,
`and 10 Are th Rendered
`
`Obvious By Haskell
`
`The Haskell patent relied upon by the Examiner is directed to a
`
`metal alloy for soldering and brazing purposes.
`The alloy is
`intended to be used in a process uniting metal carbide—containing
`
`bodies to steel-supporting bodies.
`
`See left hand column,
`
`lines 1 -
`
`5.
`
`The Haskell alloy contains from 47.5 t0‘58 wt% silver; from 36
`
`to 47 wt% copper;
`
`from 2.5 to 9.0 wt% nickel; and from a trace to
`
`3.0 wt% manganese. Haskell in the right hand column, line 9 et seq.
`
`states that the silver and copper employed impart malleability and
`ductility, with the silver keeping the melting point within the
`
`desired range. Haskell goes on to say that the nickel contributes
`
`strength and is particularly valuable in causing the alloy to
`
`effectively wet the carbides of the fourth and fifth groups.
`
`The Haskell patent is totally silent on how any brazing process
`
`is to be carried out and at what temperature.
`
`the brazing process
`
`w0uld be carried out.
`
`_ PAGEBRI 'RCVDAT 911112005 11:27:50AMIEasIemDanMTmIe]'SVRIUSPTO-EFXRFWB‘DMS:2738300‘C$ID:2038550297‘DUW10N(IHM):0246
`
`.
`
`S
`
`
`
`09/11/08
`
`11:28 FAX 203 885 0297'
`
`BACHMAN LAPOINI'E
`
`@009
`
`To establish a prima facie case of obviousness,
`
`there must be
`
`some teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art to make the
`
`specific combination that was made by the applicant.
`
`See In re
`
`Raynes,
`
`7 F.3d 1037, 1039, 28 USPQ2d 1630, 1631 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
`
`ObviouSness can not be established by hindsight combination to
`
`produce the claimed invention.
`
`See In re Gbrman. 933 F.2d 982, 986,
`
`18 USPde 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As discussed in Interconnect
`
`Planning Corp. v. F911, 774 P.2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 551 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1985), it is the prior art itself. and not the applicant's
`
`achievement, that must establish ohviousness.
`
`Independent claims 7, 9, and 10 are each allowable for the same
`
`reasons over Haskell 4 namely, Haskell does'not teach or suggest the
`
`claimed heating step.
`
`In particular, Haskell does not teach or
`
`suggest heating the article find the brazing material. Nowhere in
`
`the rejection does the Examiner address this point.
`
`In other words,
`
`the Examiner has £ailed.to explain why the prior art reference would
`
`have suggested the claimed heating steps to one or ordinary skill in
`
`the art.
`
`Further, Haskell does not teach or suggest heating the article
`
`and the brazing material to a temperature within the claimed range.
`
`Haskell is totally silent on the issue of how his alloy would be
`
`used in a brazing method.
`
`The Examiner merely contends that
`
`“because applicants' braze material is substantially the same as the
`
`instant invention'e, it would have been obvious to one having
`
`PAGEW’RCVD AT 911W 11:27:50AMIEaStflnDayflgm11me] 'SVEUSPTO-EFXRWJS‘ omsmoo'csmmsssmrnmmumrms
`
`6
`
`
`
`09/11/08
`
`11:28 FAX 203 805 0297'
`
`BACHHAN LAPOIN’I'E
`
`.010
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify
`
`Haskell's invention to arrive at applicant's claimed temperature
`range of 900 to 1050 °C to sufficiently melt the said composition of
`
`brazing material in order to create a firm bond between the steel
`
`parts to be joined together."
`
`It is well established that the mere
`
`fact that the prior art could be modified as proposed by the
`
`examiner is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness.
`
`See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266. 23 USPQZd 1780,
`
`1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`In this case,
`
`the Examiner has not explained
`
`why the prior art would have suggested the desirability of using the
`
`claimed temperature range. Haskell does not identify any
`
`temperature range at which he would carry out a brazing operation.
`
`Thus. the claimed method step eculd not possibly flow from the
`
`teachings of Haskell. As pointed out to the Examiner, one could
`
`perform a brazing operation using the Haskell alloy at a temperature
`
`outside the claimed range.
`
`The Examiner focuses on the issue of the melting point of the
`
`claimed alloy and the Haskell alloy.
`
`The Examiner concludes that
`
`since both alloys have similar compositions,
`
`they both have melting
`
`temperatures in the claimed range.
`of course,
`there is no evidence
`that supports such a conclusion. On this issue; however, it should
`
`not go unnoticed that the Leach patent relied upon by the Examiner
`
`relates to an alloy similar in composition to Haskell's alloy.
`
`The
`
`Leach alloy is reported as having a melting point of 1375°P and a use
`
`7
`
`PAGE 1am ‘ RCVDM 9102005 11:27:50 AM (Eastem Dayfigm Time] ' SVEUSPTOnEFXRf-fim ' 014512738300 ‘ 65113303 856 029? ‘ DURATION WW“
`
`
`
`09/11/08
`
`11:28 FAX 203 865 0297 '
`
`BACEHAN LAPOINTE
`
`@011
`
`temperature below about 150051? (815.55°C) . Both of these
`
`temperatures are outside the claimed range. Thus,
`
`there is the
`
`possibility that Haskellfs alloy may melt and be used at
`
`temperatures outside the claimed range.
`
`The critical point that the Examiner seems to miss is that
`
`Haskell is not just joining any two materials. Haskell is joining a
`
`steel support to metal carbide containing bodies and uses an alloy
`
`specifically designed to do that. Thus,
`
`the brazing temperature
`
`used in Haskell is not insignificant.
`
`The issue is not at what
`
`temperature close the alloy in Haskell melt. Rather,
`
`the issue is
`
`what temperature would be used to join the hard metal carbide body
`
`to a steel body and how would the brazing material be applied.
`
`Would one heat the article formed from steel or would one heat the
`
`hard metal carbide body? The answer to these questions is unknown
`
`because Haskell has not provided any teachings on how to join the
`
`steel body to the hard metal carbide body. As far as the Examiner's
`
`argument abOut similar compositions,
`
`thus similar temperatures would
`
`be used, such an argument is without merit in light of the
`
`information in beach. As noted above, one could melt the alloy of
`
`Haskell at a temperature outside the claimed range. Absent
`
`something that teaches 'or suggests the claimed heating step and the
`
`claimed temperature range,
`
`the obviousness rejection fails.
`
`Appellants agreu a reference may be relied upon for all that it
`
`would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the
`
`PM W21 ' RCVDAI UMWS 11:27:50 AM [Eastern nayngm Time] ' SVKUSPTOEXRFW ’ 010622738300 ' 68101203 856 0297 ' DURATION (mm-emu
`
`
`
`09/11/08 11:28 Pu 203 835' 0297’
`
`BAcmMN LAPOIN'I‘B
`
`.012
`
`art including non-preferred embodiments.
`
`The problem with Haskell
`
`is that it does not contain any teachings or suggestions relating to
`
`the claimed heating step. As noted above, it is totally silent on
`
`the issue.
`
`Claim 9 is further allowable because Haskell requires the
`
`presence of nickel, an element that is excluded from claim 9. Thus,
`
`there is nothing in Haskell which would teach er suggest the brazing
`
`material applying step of claim 9.
`
`The Examiner's comments are duly noted; however, Appellants are
`
`not required by statute to show any unexpected results.
`
`In this
`
`case, such results are not required since the Examiner has failed to
`
`make a prima facie case of obviousness.
`
`If Haskell suggests
`
`anything to one of ordinary skill in the art, it is that nickel is'a
`
`necessary component of Haskell's alloy. As Haskell states, ‘Itlhe
`
`nickel contributes strength and is particularly valuable in causing
`
`the alloy to effectively wet the carbides of the fourth and fifth
`
`groups." (See right-hand column,
`
`lines 12 -15 of Haskell.) Given
`
`this disclosure in Haskell,
`
`there is absolutely no reason one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to eliminate nickel
`
`from the alloy;
`
`The Examiner's statement that the claimed
`
`composition is disclosed in Haskell regardless of the presence of
`
`nickel is incomprehensible to Appellants.
`
`It is unreasonable and
`
`illogical to take the position that the claimed composition is
`
`PAGE m1 'RCVDAWIIIIOW 11:27:50AMIEastemDayfingmel' SVEUSPTOIEFXRF-fim'DNB:2738300'CSID:2038660291'DURAT10N(II1M):0248
`
`9
`
`
`
`09/}1/08 11:28 FAX 203 885 0297'
`
`BACKIIAN LAPOIN'I'E
`
`@013
`
`distloeed, when what is disclosed includes a constituent which has
`
`been excluded by the claim language;
`
`With regard to the Hensel et a1. patent referred to by the
`
`Examiner in the Examiner’s comments, Appellants point out that it
`
`has not been applied against any of the claims and for very good
`
`reason. Hensel’s alloy contains a constituent, namely lithium,
`
`which is excluded by the claim language. There can he no question
`
`that Haskell teaches away from using a nickel-less composition since
`
`Haskell teaches using nickel because it Contributes strength and is
`
`valuable in causing the alloy to effectivaly wet the carbides of the
`
`fourth and fifth groups.‘
`
`claim 10 is further allowable because Haskell requires the
`
`presence of a minimum nickel content of 2.5 wt%. Therefore, Haskell
`
`_ldoes not'teach or suggest, and never would,
`
`the brazing material
`
`applying step of claim 10 and in particular the proportions set
`
`forth in the claim. No matter what the manganese content of the
`
`claimed brazing material,
`
`the nickel content must always be less
`
`than 2.0 wt% in the invention set forth in claim 10. This nickel
`
`content is outside the nickel range of Haskell. There is nothing in
`
`- Haskell that would teach or suggest using a nickel content less than
`
`2.5 wt%.
`
`In fact, Haskell clearly teaches away frOm the claimed
`
`invention.
`
`With regard to the Examiner's comments that it would be obvious
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`mmrncmmmoos11:21:50mnmmmrmersvmusmm'ommm-cameosmromnonmmmm
`
`10
`
`
`
`09/11/08
`
`11:29 FAX 203 80.5 0297'
`
`BACHBAN LAPOINI'E
`
`@014
`
`choose the instantly claimed values through process optimization,
`
`since it has been held that there are general conditions of a claim
`
`are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable
`
`ranges involves only routine skill in the art, such comments ignore
`
`the teachings of Haskell. Haskell clearly teaches using a nickel
`
`content in the range of 2.5 to 9.0%. There is nothing in Haskell
`
`which would teach or suggest that this nickel Content should be
`
`modified for any reason. The Examiner's position is nothing more
`
`than an and run around the requirement that there be some teaching
`or suggestion of the modification in the priOr art.
`It is submitted
`
`that one can not take the position that an invention is obvious by
`
`varying all parameters or trying each of numerous possible choices
`
`until one possibly arrives at a successful result, where the prior
`
`art gives no indicatLon of which parameters were critical or no
`
`direction as to which of may possible choices is likely to be
`
`successful.
`
`See In re O'Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903~04 (Fed. Cir.
`
`1988).
`
`(b) Patentability of Claims 8 and 11 - 13
`
`Claim 8 calls for the heating step to comprise heating the
`
`article and the brazing material at a temperature in the range of
`
`tron: about 950°C to about 1050°C. As noted above,
`
`there is nothing
`
`in Haskell which teaches or suggests heating the article and the
`
`brazing material. There is also nothing in fiaskell which teaches or
`
`PAGE «01 ‘ RCVDN 3102005 11:27:50 Md [Eastern Dayfigm Tune] ' smusnm ' ONISZIW ' 6510203 855 0297 ' DURATION (rm-SSW“
`
`11
`
`
`
`09/11/00
`
`11:29 FAX 203 003 0207'
`
`BACHMAN LAPOIhnE
`
`'
`
`E9015
`
`suggests heating the article and the brazing material to the claimed
`
`temperature.
`
`Claims 11 ~ 13 stand or fall with claim 7.
`
`II.
`
`The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`unpatentable over Haskell in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,138,638
`to Leach
`
`(a) Patentability of claim 14
`
`claim 14 is directed to a method for brazing an article
`comprising the steps of:
`(1) providing an article formed from
`
`stainless Steel;
`
`(2) applying a brazing material to said article
`
`.formed from an alloy consisting essentially of from about 52.25 wt%
`
`to about 57.0 wt% silver,
`
`from about 38.95 to about 43.0 wt% copper,
`
`from about 0.5 wt% to 5.5'wt% manganese, and up to about 2.5 wt%
`
`nickel; and (3) heating said article and said brazing material at a
`
`temperature in the range of from about 900°C to about 1050°C for a
`
`time sufficient to melt said brazing material.
`I
`As noted ab0ve, Haskell fails to teach or suggest the claimed
`
`heating step. Haskell also fails to teach the step of previding an
`
`article formed from stainless steel.
`
`To cure this defect,
`
`the Examiner applies the Leach patent as
`
`disclosing alloys for brazing purposes adapted to unite objects made
`
`of stainless steel.
`
`The Examiner contends that it would have been
`
`obvious to modify Haskell to interporate the joining of stainless
`
`steel as taught by Leach in order to utilize silver alloys to braze
`
`stainless steel with significant wetting ability.
`
`12
`
`P11131501 'RCVD1191111210511127:50 AM [Easiem Dayflwlt Tlmel ' SVRIUSFI'O‘EFXRNM ' 0mm ' CSID:203 885 0297 ' DURATION (111015510245
`
`
`
`oa/n/oe 11:29 FAX 203 333 0297'
`
`“cm uponm:
`
`@013
`
`First, one of ordinary skill in the art would not want to
`
`modify Haskell to use stainless steel as a support for metal carbide
`
`Containing bodies to be used in metal-cutting and forming tools.
`
`Second, it is submitted that the Examiner misapplies Leach. Leach
`does not only teach brazing a stainless steel material, it teaches
`
`using a silVer-coppet-manganese-nickel brazing material that
`
`includes silicon. Clearly, one of Ordinary skill in the art having
`
`Haskell and Leach before him would be motivated to add silicon to
`
`the brazing material when brazing a stainless Steel material.
`In
`other words, Leach is teaching away from the claimed invention.-
`
`Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated
`
`to combine the references in the manner suggested by the Examiner.
`
`-If anything, one would be motivated to use a brazing material other
`
`than what is set forth in the claim.
`
`Even if it were obvious to combine the references as suggested
`
`by the Examiner, neither reference teaches or suggests the claimed
`
`heating step. Leach clearly teaches a use temperature of 1500°F
`
`(815.55°C) which is higher than the alloy's melt temperature.
`
`In
`
`other words, Leach teaches away from the claimed temperature range.
`
`As discussed above, Haskell is silent on the heating temperature.
`
`For these reasons,
`
`independent claim 14 is allowable over the
`
`cited and applied refierences.
`
`CONCLUS ION
`
`l3
`
`”6516121'RCVDAWIWMMOAM[EadanDayfigNTunePSVkUSflO-EFXRFW'DMS2WO'CSiDfiO38fi moroumouanmsmw
`
`
`
`1111/10
`
`
`7117111? 10:14 FAX 203 ae_5_02§7
`
`___I_3ACHMAN LAPOINTE
`
`I002
`
`APPEAL BRIEF FEE
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge the $500.00 appeal
`
`brief fee to Deposit Account No. 21-0279.
`
`Should the Director
`
`determine that an additional fee is due, he is hereby authorized to
`
`charge said additional fee to said Deposit Account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Wa
`
`e Lin et a1.
`
` & LaPOINTE. P.C.
`
`Reg. No. 29,999 .
`Attorney for Applicants
`Telephone:
`(203)777r6628 ext. 112
`Telefax:
`(203)865—0297
`Email: docket®bachlap.com
`
`.
`IN TRIPLICATE
`
`Date: August 9, 2006
`
`{.me M. Gm,heteby certify that this conespondmec isbeing deposibd with the United Status Postal Service with mflicimxposmy: u fimclass mail
`(3 add
`10‘: "Commissiunu for Parents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 223]?!" on August 9, 2096.
`
`
`
`PAGE 212* RCVD AT 1211212000 10:15:15 AM [Eastern Standard Time] ‘ SVR1USPTO£FXRF0127 ’ DNIS:2?31651 ' 08101203 865 0297 * DURATION (mm-ss):00-38
`
`14
`
`
`
`00/11/08
`
`11:29 FAX 203 883 0297'
`
`BACHHAN UPOINTB
`
`Q1017
`
`reverse the rejections of record and remand the instant application
`
`
` For the foregoing reasons,
`the Board is hereby requested to
`
`
`
`back to the Primary Examiner for allowance.
`
`
`APPEAL BRIEF FEE
` rge the $500.00 appeal
`
`._
`-
`-
`-
`authorjzed/zh
`brief fee to Deposit Account No.
`
`
`
`~0279.
`
`Should the Director
`
`charge said addition
`
`fee to said Deposit ACCOunt.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Wangen Lin et a1.
`
`By
`
`
`
`Barry L. Kelmachter
`BACHMAN E: LaPOINTB, P.C.
`Reg. No. 29,999
`Attorney for Applicants
`Telephone:
`(203)777-6628 ext. 112
`Telefax:
`(203)865-0297
`
`5”
`
`IN TRIPLICATE
`
`mail: docket®bachlap.com
`
`Date: August 9, 2006
`
`immommmhyummummmmummuwimwwmwmmmmmmummm
`mac-madammmmihrmno.ncxlaso.A1emdri-.VAm1rmm9.m.
`
`
`PAGE 1M1 ' RCVDAT 911112005 11 12750 M [Eastam 0mm Time] ' SVRillSPTO-EFXRFW 'MW' CSIDZIM 855 0297 ' DURAHON cum-SSW“
`
`14
`
`
`
`own/as
`
`11:29 FAX 20: 38's 0297'
`
`new LAPOINTE
`
`'
`
`RECEIVED
`CENTRALFAXCENTER
`
`@018
`
`SEP _1 12005
`
`W
`
`7. A method for brazing an article comprising the steps of:
`
`(1)
`
`(2) applying a
`providing an article formed from a ferrous material;
`brazing material to said article formed from an alloy consisting
`essentially of from about 52.25 wt% to about 57.0 wt% silver,
`from
`
`from about 0.5 wt% to
`about 39.95 wt% to about 43.0 wté copper,
`about 5.5 vt% manganese, and up to about 2.5 wt% nickel; and (3)
`
`heating said article and said brazing material at a temperature in
`
`the range of from about 900°C to about 1050°C for a time sufficient
`
`to melt said brazing material.
`
`8. The method of claim 7. wherein said heating step comprises
`
`heating said article and said brazing material at a temperature in
`the range of from about 950°C to about 1050°C.
`
`9. A method for brazlng an article comprising the steps of: .(1)
`
`providing an article formed from a ferrous material;
`
`(2) applying a
`
`brazing material consisting of 56 wt! silver, 42 wt% copper. and 2.0
`
`wt% manganese; and (.5) heating said article and said brazing
`
`material at a temperature in the range of from about 900°C to about
`
`1050°C for a time suificient to melt said brazing material.
`
`10. A method for brazing an article comprising the steps of:
`
`(1)
`
`(2) applying a
`providing an article formed from a ferrous material;
`brazing material connisting essentially of 0.5 to 5-5 wt% manganese
`with remaining composition being proportional toe-he 56 wt% silver,
`
`42 wt% copper, and 2.0 wt% nickel; and (3) heating said article and
`
`said brazing material at a temperature in the range of from about
`900°C to about 1050°C for a time sufficient to melt said brazing
`material.
`‘
`
`PAGE18121' RCVDA1911112011511227§0 AM [Eastem Dayflgm Timel' SVRIUSPTWXRFM' 01115173830? 135111203 855 0297‘ 11111111111111 (11111163120215
`
`15
`
`
`
`09/11/08 11:29 Fax 203 885 0297'
`
`anew LAPOINTE
`
`.019
`
`11. The method according to claim 7, wherein said brazing material
`
`being applied has a nickel content in the range of from about 1.5
`wt% to about 2.5 wt%.
`
`12. The method according to claim 7, wherein said brazing material
`being applied has a manganese content in the range of from about 1.0
`
`wt% to about 5.5 yt%.
`
`13. The method according to claim 7, wherein said article providing
`
`step comprises providing an article formed from steel.
`
`(1)
`14. A method for brazing an article comprising the steps of:
`providing an article formed frOm stainless steel;
`(2) applying a
`brazing material to said article formed from an alloy consisting'
`eeeentially of from about 52.25 wtt to about 57.0 wt% silver,
`from
`
`about 38.95 wt% to about 43.0 wt% copper,
`
`from about 0.5 wt% to 5.5
`
`wt% manganese, and up to about 2.5 wt% nickel; and (3) heating said
`article and said brazing material at a temperature in the range of
`
`from about 900°C to about 1050°C for a time sufficient to melt said
`
`brazing material.
`
`PAGEIQM‘RCVDANHW11:27:50AMMDMMTMI'SVEUSFTOEWW'DMZW‘MIMWMT’DWWNWW“
`
`16
`
`
`
`09/11/05
`
`11:29 w: 203 833 0297'
`
`new [.001er
`
`,
`
`Iozo
`
`EVIDEN
`
`-
`
`PENDDC
`
`NOT APPUCABLB
`
`PAGE 2M1 ‘ RCVDAT 91112006 11:27:50 AM [Eastem Daylight rune] ' SVRilSPTO-EFXRFW ' 01033733300 ' csmoa 866 0297 ' DURATION (magma
`
`[7
`
`
`
`-
`
`- own/as
`
`11:29 m; 203 365 0291'
`
`Bacmwv urowrs
`
`.021
`
`gELATED PR
`
`-
`
`NOT APPLICABLE
`
`PAGEMI‘RCVDAT Q11R00611127fiommmyfigm Tflnel'SVRfiSPTO-EXRFW'DMS:WD' 6810103866 MI‘DURA'HON (rmrss):0246
`
`18
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
