`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.0. Box 1450
`Alexandria. Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`I 1/ 185,619
`
`07/19/2005
`
`Wangcn Lin
`
`EH-104SZB(00-749-3)
`
`5656
`
`5””
`”9°
`°3’°9’2°°7
`BACHMAN&LAPOINTE,RC. (MW) _
`900 CHAPEL STREET
`BEVERIDGE, RACHEL E
`SUITE 1201
`
`NEW HAVEN, cr 06510-2802 —
`
`SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD OF RESPONSE
`
`2 MONTHS
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`03/09/2007
`
`1725
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire 6 MONTHS
`from the mailing date of this communication.
`‘
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 10/06)
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`.7?" ._
`. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE L"
`Commissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria. VA 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
`AND INTERFERENCES
`
`Application Number: 11/185,619
`Filing Date: July 19, 2005
`Appellant(s): LIN ET AL.
`.
`-
`
`A
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`.
`
`MAILED
`W 0 9 2007
`GROUP 17
`00
`
`Barry Kelmachter
`For Aggellant
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINER'S ANSWER
`
`

`

`SUPPLEMENTAL EXAMINER'S ANSWER
`
`This is in response to the reply brief filed January 16, 2007 appealing from the
`
`Examiner’s Answer mailed November 13, 2006.
`
`(1) Real Party in Interest
`
`A statement identifying by name the real party in interest is contained in the brief.
`
`i
`
`(2) Related Appeals and Interferences
`
`The examiner is not aware of any related appeals, interferences, orjudicial
`
`proceedings which will directly affect or be directly affected by or have a bearing on the
`
`Board’s decision in the pending appeal.
`
`(3) Status of Claims
`
`The statement of the status of claims contained in the brief is correct.
`
`(4) Status of Amendments After Final
`
`The appellants’ statement of the status of amendments after final rejection
`
`contained in the brief is correct.
`
`(5) Summary of Claimed Subject Matter
`
`The summary of claimed subject matter contained in the brief is correct.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619 .
`
`'
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`(6) Grounds of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal
`
`The appellants’ statement of the grounds of rejection to be reviewed on appeal is
`
`substantially correct. The changes are as follows:
`
`WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
`
`The following grounds of rejection are not presented for review on appeal
`
`because they have been withdrawn by the examiner. The rejection of claim 9 under 35
`
`U.S.C.'103(a) as being unpatentable over US. Patent No. 2,303,272 (Haskell) has
`
`been withdrawn by the examiner in view of the appellants’ arguments.
`
`The following grounds of rejection are applicable to the appealed claims:
`
`Claims 7, 8, and 10-13 "are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over US. Patent No. 2,303,272 (Haskell); and
`
`Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over US.
`
`Patent No. 2,303,272 (Haskell) in view of US. Patent No. 2,138,638 (Leach).
`
`(7) Claims Appendix
`
`A substantially correct copy of appealed claims 7-14 appears on pages 15-16 of
`
`the Appendix to the appellants’ brief. The minor errors are as follows: claim 10 contains
`
`the word “the” on line 4 which was deleted in the response received on January 20,
`
`' 2006.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`
`‘
`
`-
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`(8) Evidence Relied Upon
`
`2,303,272
`
`_
`
`HASKELL
`
`11-1942
`
`2,138,638
`
`3,887,731
`
`LEACH
`
`DEAN et al.
`
`-
`
`11-1938 -
`
`6-1975 (Response to
`
`Arguments only)
`
`Schwartz, Melvin M. "Introduction to Brazing and Soldering" ASM Handbook,
`vol6 (1993), p. 110 (Response to Arguments only)
`7
`Schwartz, Melvin M. "Introduction to Brazing'l' ASM Handbook, vo|6 (1993), pp.
`
`116-118 and 120 (Response to Arguments only)
`
`(9) Grounds Vof Rejection
`
`The following grou_nd(s) of rejection are applicable to the appealed claims:
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set
`forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and
`the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
`invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`'
`
`Claims 7, 8, and 10—13 are rejected under'35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over Haskell (US 2,303,272).
`
`With respect to Claims 7 and 8, Haskell discloses alloys for brazing purposes to
`
`unite steel-supporting bodies (Haskell, column 1, lines 1-5). Haskell's alloy consists of
`
`the following composition ranges: silver 47.5 to 58%, copper 36 to 47%, nickel 2.5 to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`Page 5
`
`9%, and manganese tr. to 3% (Haskell, column 2, lines 1-7). The composition ranges
`for silver and copper as disclosed by Haskell encompass the ranges disclosed by the
`
`appellants. The composition range for manganese as disclosed by Haskell
`
`encompasses the majority of the appellants’ claimed range, and Haskell’s nickel
`
`composition range encompasses 2.5% as is also disclosed by the appellants’ claim.
`
`Furthermore, Haskell discloses that a “high melting point is necessary” for brazing
`
`(Haskell, column 1, lines 28—29). Because Appellants’ braze material is substantially the
`
`same as the instant invention’s, it Would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
`in the art at the time of the invention to modify Haskell’s invention to arrive at the
`.
`claimed high 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 (Haskell, column 1, lines 42-44).
`
`With regard to Claim 10, the teachings of Haskell are the same as relied upon in
`
`the rejection of Claim 7. Also, Haskell’s alloy consists of the following composition
`
`ranges: silver 47.5 to 58%, copper 36 to 47%, nickel 2.5 to 9%, and manganese tr. to
`
`3% (Haskell, column 2, lines 1—7). The composition ranges for silver and copper as
`
`disclosed by Haskell encompass the ranges disclosed by the appellants. The
`
`composition range for manganese as disclosed by Haskell encompasses the majority of
`
`the appellants’ claimed range. Haskell's nickel composition range encompasses 2.5%
`
`as is substantially similar to that-disclosed by the appellants. Put another way, Haskell
`teaches sufficient malleability and ductility from silver and copper, maintenance of the
`
`desired melting range from silver, increased strength and effective wetting ability from
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`Page 6
`
`nickel, and purification of the alloy by manganese to eliminate oxidation (Haskell,
`
`column 2, lines 9-16), to be an art recognized result effective variable depending on the
`
`type of material to be used.
`
`It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time of the invention was made to modify the invention of Haskell to
`
`include the instant composition disclosed by' the appellants in claim 10. That is it would
`
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`
`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. See l_n
`
`re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
`
`' Regarding Claim 11, the teachings of Haskell are the same as relied upon in the
`
`rejection 'of Claim 10. Haskell’s alloy consists of the fOIlowing composition ranges: silver
`
`47.5 to 58%, copper 36 to 47%,nickel 2.5 to 9%, and manganese tr. to 3% (Haskell,
`
`column 2, lines 1-7). Haskell’s nickel composition range encompasses 2.5% as is
`
`substantially similar to that disclosed by the appellants. Thus, it would have been
`
`obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the
`
`disclosed nickel composition of Haskell to encompass the values lower than 2.5% of
`
`Appellants’ instant invention in order to obtain desirable high wetting ability so that a
`
`firm bond can be created between the steel parts joined together (Haskell,'column 1,
`
`lines 42—44).
`
`It is also the examiner's position that the amounts in question are so close
`
`that is it prima facie obvious that one skilled in. the art would have expected them to
`
`have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`With respect to Claim 12, the teachings of Haskell are the same as relied upon in
`
`the rejection of Claim 10. Haskell’s alloy consists of the following composition ranges:
`
`silver 47.5 to 58%, copper 36 to 47%, nickel 2.5 to 9%, and manganese tr. to 3%
`
`(Haskell, column 2, lines 1—7). The composition range for manganese as disclosed by
`
`Haskell encompasses the majority of the appellants’ claimed range. Hence, it would
`have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify '
`
`the disclosed manganese composition of Haskell with the. broader range of the
`
`appellants in order to purify the alloy and eliminate oxidation (Haskell, column 2, lines
`
`15-16) and to obtain desirable high wetting ability so that a firm bond can be created
`
`between the steel parts joined together (Haskell, column 1, lines 42-44).
`
`With regard to Claim 13, the teachings of Haskell are the same as relied upon in
`
`the rejection of Claim 10. Haskell discloses alloys for brazing purposes to unite steel-
`
`supporting bodies (Haskell, column 1, lines 1—5). Therefore, it would have been obvious
`
`to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the invention of
`
`Haskell to encompass the claimed alloy composition ranges for brazing of steel bodies
`in order to obtain desirable high wetting ability so that a firm bond can be created
`
`between the steel parts joined together (Haskell, column 1, lines 42-44).
`
`Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haskell
`
`(US 2,303,272) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Leach (US
`
`2,138,638).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`.
`
`-
`
`Page 8
`'
`
`With regard to claim 14, the teachings of Haskell are the same as relied upon in
`the rejection of Claim 7. However, Haskell lacks disclosure of stainless steel bodies for
`brazing with the said alloy‘compositions; Leach discloses alloys for brazing purposes
`
`adapted to uniteobjects made of stainless steel (Leach, page 1, column 1, lines 1-5).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention to modify the inventionof Haskell toincorporate the joining of stainless steel
`
`as taught by Leach in order to Utilize silver alloys to braze stainless steel with significant
`
`’
`
`wetting ability (Leach, page 1, column 1, lines 7—15).
`
`(10) Response to Argument
`
`Appellants argue that “the Haskell patent is totally silent on how any brazing
`
`process is to be carried out and at what temperature, the brazing process would be
`
`carried out" (Appeal Brief, page 5). The examiner disagrees. Haskell states, “this
`
`invention relates to alloys particularly suited for solder and brazing purposes, and is
`
`concerned more particularly with the novel alloy especially adapted for uniting metal
`
`carbide—containing bodies to steel—supporting bodies" (Haskell, column 1, lines 1-5).
`
`The simple definition of brazing implies that heating must occur at a temperature high
`
`enough to melt the brazing material (see Schwartz, p. 110, column 1, Mechanics of
`
`Brazing); thus, it is clearly implied by Haskell’s disclosure of brazing in order “unite"
`
`bodies (including ferrous steel bodies) that heating must occur during the brazing
`
`process. Also, Haskell states, “cooling following the brazing operation" (Haskell, column
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`1, lines 38-41), which also clearly implies that brazing is carried out at an elevated
`
`temperature (hence the necessity to cool following the brazing process).
`
`Appellants argue, “obviousness can not be established by hindsight combination
`
`to produce the claimed limitation” (Appeal Brief, page 6). The examiner disagrees that
`
`the obviousness type rejection set forth with regard to claims 7, 8, and 10—13 is based
`
`on hindsight.
`
`In response to Appellants’ argument that the examiner's conclusion of
`
`obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that
`
`any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon
`
`hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was
`
`within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does
`
`- not include knowledge gleaned only from the appellants' disclosure, such a
`
`reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA
`
`1971). As stated in the Final office action:
`
`Haskell discloses alloys for brazing purposes to unite steel—
`supporting bodies (Column 1,
`lines 1-5). Haskell’s alloy consists of the
`following composition ranges: silver 47.5 to 58%, copper 36 to 47%, nickel
`The
`2.5 to 9%, and manganese tr.
`to 3% (Column 2,
`lines 1-7).
`composition ranges for silver and copper as disclosed by Haskell
`anticipate the ranges disclosed by the [Appellant]. The composition range
`for manganese as disclosed by Haskell encompasses the majority of the
`[Appellants’] claimed range, and Haskell’s nickel composition range
`encompasses 2.5% as is also disclosed by the [Appellant]. Furthermore,
`Haskell discloses that a “high melting point
`is necessary" for brazing
`(Column 1,
`lines 28-29).
`Because [Appellants'] braze material
`is
`substantially the same as the instant
`invention’s,
`it would have been
`obVious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
`modify Haskell’s
`invention to arrive at
`[Appellants’]
`claimed high
`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 (Column 1, lines 42-44).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`‘
`
`.
`
`Page 10
`‘
`
`In the instant case, it is the examiner’s position that the obviousness established
`via Haskell is not based on hindsight. No knowledge was gleaned from Appellants‘
`
`disclosure in the determination of obviousness. Only knowledge within the level of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made since the rejection was based
`
`on Haskell (US 2,303,272). Additionally, the'examiner would like to note that the
`
`motivation to combine (i.e. to sufficiently melt the said composition of brazing material in
`
`order to create a firm bond between the steel parts to be joined) came from Haskell and
`
`not from Appellants’ disclosure.
`
`Appellants next argue that “Haskell does not teach or suggest the claimed
`heating step... in particular, Haskell does not teach or suggest heating the article and
`
`the brazing material" (Appeal Brief, page 6). The examiner disagrees. The examiner
`would like to point out that Haskell meets the claim limitation for “heating the article" by
`
`stating, “cooling following the brazing operation" (Haskell, column 1, lines 38-41). This
`
`teaching clearly implies that heating of the bodies (articles) occurred during the brazing
`
`process (hence the necessity to cool following the brazing process). Haskell also meets
`
`the claim limitation for “and heatingthe brazing material" via teaching the properties of a '
`
`good brazing material (Haskell, column 1, lines 54—60) and refers to elements which are
`
`undesired because they lower the melting point of the brazing composition; thus, further
`
`implying that the brazing composition is heated to a melting temperature during the
`
`brazing step (Haskell, column 2, lines 19-25). Furthermore, the examiner points out that
`
`brazing is a well known process to one of ordinary skill in the art, and the steps of
`
`brazing include “the assembled parts and brazing filler metal reach a temperature high
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`Art Unit: 1725
`'
`
`Page 11
`
`-
`
`enough to melt the filler metal but not the parts" (Schwartz, p. 110, col. 1, Mechanics of
`
`Brazing). Thus, Haskell’s general teaching of a brazing process necessarily includes
`
`the general teaching of brazing which includes heating both the articles to be joined and
`the brazing material until the brazing material melts and joins the articles together.
`
`Appellants argue, “Haskell does not teach or suggest heating the article and the
`
`brazing material to a temperature within the claimed range" and states that, “Haskell is
`
`totally silent on the issue of how his alloy would be used in a brazing method" (Appeal
`
`Brief, page ‘6). The examiner agrees that Haskell does not teach the temperature range
`
`for heating as claimed by the appellants, but the examiner disagrees that Haskell does
`
`not suggest the claimed temperature range fer brazing substantially similar if not
`
`identical brazing compositions. Haskell’s brazing composition contains substantially the
`
`same composition of elements as the appellants’ brazing composition, and more
`
`importantly certain combinations of the ranges could contain the same composition as
`
`Appellants’ brazing material. Thus, within the same brazing environment (i.e. vacuum,
`inert, pressure conditions, etc), a substantially similar brazing composition or the exact
`
`same brazing composition would reach the same melting temperature range. As
`
`pointed out above, it is well known by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
`
`invention that brazing entails heating the article and brazing material to the melting
`
`temperature of the brazing material, allowing it to form a bond, and then cooling it to
`
`complete the bonding/brazing process (see Schwartz, p. 110, Mechanics of Brazing and
`
`pp. 116—118, Elements of the Brazing Process). Appellants also argue that “it is well
`
`established that the mere fact that the prior art could be modified as proposed by the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`
`.
`
`'
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`examiner is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness," and states
`
`that “in this case, the Examiner has not explained why the prior art would have
`suggested the desirability of using the claimed temperature range" (Appeal Brief, page
`
`7).. The examiner disagrees and would like to point out the fact that identical
`
`'
`
`compositions of materials within the same brazing material, placed on the same
`
`material articles, in the same environment, will melt at the same temperature based on
`
`ordinary knowledge in the art. Thus, substantially similar compositions of materials
`
`within a brazing material (variations of the ranges presented), placed 0n substantially
`
`the same material articles (in this case, steel), in the same environment, will melt within
`
`V
`
`' substantially the same temperature range. Also, the examiner would like to point out
`. that the appellants have not claimed the t‘desi‘rability" (that is argued) of the claimed
`temperature range; therefore, the examiner disagrees with the appellants’ suggestion '
`
`that the desirability of the instant inventions temperature. range would be any different
`
`than that of Haskell which teaches brazing on ferrous (steel) articles utilizing the same
`
`brazing composition and therefore encompasses the temperature for melting the
`
`particular brazing composition. The eXaminer disagrees with the appellants’ suggestion
`
`that, “one could perform the brazing operation using the Haskell alloy at a temperature
`outside the claimed range" (Appeal Brief, page 7) based on. the knowledge of one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art that brazing processes are performed to the melting temperature
`
`of the brazing material but not the parts to be joined (Schwartz, p. 110, Mechanics of
`
`Brazing) and the composition of Haskell’s alloy is substantially similar if not identical to
`
`the composition of the instant claims.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`V
`
`I
`
`Page 13
`
`Appellants then argue that there is no evidence to support the examiner's
`
`conclusion that since both alloys have similar compositions, they both have melting
`temperatures in the claimed range (Appeal brief, page 7). The examiner disagrees for
`
`all reasons stated above with regard to the general understand of brazing (evidence
`provided via’ Schwartz in the ASM Handbook,‘Volumve 6). Also, in order to further make
`this point'clear the examiner would like to provide an example with respect to the
`
`claimed ranges of compositions and Haskell’s ranges. Based on the ranges provided in
`
`_ claims 7 and 14, a possible combination of the elements can be 54 wt% silver (Ag), 42
`wt% copper (Cu), 2.5 wt% nickel (Ni), and 1.5 wt% manganese (Mn). This is also a
`possible combination of the four elements disclosed by Haskell in column 2 Both the
`appellants’ and Haskell braze. the material combination on ferrous bodies (Haskell’s
`
`disclosure of steel suggests a ferrous body). Therefore, under the same ‘
`conditibns/environment, both the appellants’ combination and Haskell’s combination of
`
`elements would have the same melting temperature which is also well known in the art
`
`to be the brazing temperature sufficient to form a good bond (see the reference to
`
`SchWartz in the response above). For various elemental combinations of Appellants'
`
`claimed braze alloy and various elemental combinations of Haskell’s taught braze alloy,
`
`the brazing temperatures (melting temperatures) will be substantially similar and
`
`therefore obviously lie within a substantially similar range of temperatures. Thus, it is
`
`the examiner's position that Haskell clearly suggests a specific temperature range for
`
`brazing with respect to the specific ranges of elements disclosed for the brazing
`
`material.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`The appellants also argue that, “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"
`
`and “the Leach alloy is reported as having a melting point of 1375 °F and a use
`
`temperature below about 1500 °F (815.55 °C)” (Appeal Brief, pages 7-8). The
`
`appellants argue this point with the position that Leach then suggests the possibility for
`
`Haskell’s alloy to melt and be used at temperatures outside of the claimed range
`
`(Appeal Brief, page 8). The examiner disagrees. The examiner would like to note that
`
`the “possibility” of Haskell’s alloy to melt at temperatures outside of the claimed range
`
`does not remove any “possibility" that Haskell’s alloy would melt within the claim range.
`
`Furthermore, the examiner points out that although the Leach alloy is similar to that of
`
`Haskell, it is not substantially similar enough to arrive at the appellants’ allegation. First,
`
`Leach discloses ranges for silver and copper that are wider than that of Haskell.
`
`Second, Leach has much more manganese content (5-15 wt%) than disclosed by
`
`Haskell (trace to 3 wt%) and claimed by the appellants' (0.5-5.5 wt%); thus, this
`
`significant difference could possibly result in a significant difference in melting
`
`temperature (as demonstrated by Leach). Third, Leach includes silicon in each
`
`example, which could also contribute to the temperature difference of the compositions
`
`disclosed by Haskell and compositions disclosed by Leach.
`
`Appellants argue that the examiner misses the critical point that Haskell “is not
`
`just joining any two materials” but “Haskell is joining a steel support to metal carbide
`
`bodies and uses an alloy specifically designed to do that" (Appeal Brief, page 8). The
`
`examiner agrees. However, the examiner would like to point out that the instant claims
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`broadly claim “providing an article formed from a ferrous material” (claims 7 and 10),
`
`and then define the ferrous’material to be “steel” (claim 13). Haskell Clearly discloses a
`
`ferrous material by disclosing the attachment of the specific brazing material to steel
`
`supporting‘bodies (Haskell, column 1, lines1-5). Appellants then argue that “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” (Appeal Brief, page 8). The examiner
`disagrees based on the clear understanding of the brazing process discussed above.
`
`The examiner understands that an upper limit for temperature of the brazing process
`
`must be lower than the melting temperature of the articles being joined, so in this
`
`respect the articles joined play a roll in the temperature range; however, the melting
`
`temperature of the brazing material must always be reached in order to properly
`
`braze/bond articles. Therefore, the ranges for Haskell’s alloy would necessarily include
`
`the melting temperature of the brazing alloy and therefore fall within the claimed range
`
`of the appellants (based on the discussion above regarding melting temperatures of
`
`similar or same alloy compositions). Also, Haskell’s disclosure of brazing composition
`
`bonded to the steel supporting bodies, regardless of the carbide bodies, clearly
`
`encompasses the appellants' general claim for brazing on articles formed from ferrous
`
`materials.
`
`Appellants then agree that a reference may be relied upon for all that it would
`
`have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art including non-
`
`preferred embodiments; but argue that “the problem with Haskell is that it does not
`
`contain any teachings or suggestions relating to the claimed heating step" (Appeal Brief,
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`pages 8—9). The examiner disagrees for all reasons previously stated above and notes
`
`that Haskell sufficiently suggests the claimed heating step by merely disclosing a
`
`brazing process for bonding the brazing alloy to steel bodies. Again, based on the plain
`meaning of ‘lbrazing" it is well known by on of ordinary skill in the art includes a heating
`step which heats the articles and brazing materials only enough to melt the brazing
`material and achieve a good bond between articles (see Schwartz, p. 110, Mechanics of
`
`Brazing; p. 116, Elements of the Brazing Process; p. 117-118, Filler—Metal
`
`Characteristics; and p. 120, Temperature and Time). Furthermore, it is well known in
`
`the art that only the brazing filler changes phase during melting/heating; thus the
`
`temperature ranges are capped before reaching the liquidus point of the articles being
`
`joined (see Schwartz, p. 118, column 2).
`
`Appellants argue with respect to the rejection of Claim 9 as obvious over Haskell
`
`(Appeal Brief, pages 9-10). The examiner agrees and has withdrawn the rejection of
`
`Claim 9.
`
`Appellants argue that “Haskell does 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" and further states that the “nickel content is outside the nickel range of
`
`Haskell" (Appeal Brief, pages 10—11). The examiner understands that the nickel ranges
`
`of Haskell are slightly out of range of that claimed by the appellants. However, the
`
`examiner disagrees that Haskell does not suggest the brazing material as stated in
`
`claim 10, First, with regard to Appellants' claimed composition the examiner would like
`
`to point out the values for each element. Based on the claim, the elements should be
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`
`.
`
`,
`
`_
`
`Page 17
`
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`within the ranges as follows: 0.555 wt% manganese (Mn), 52.92—55.72 wt% silver
`
`(Ag), 39.69-41.79 wt% copper (Cu), 1.89—1.99 wt% nickel (Ni). These range values
`
`were determined by the appellants’. claim to have 36% silver, 42% copper, and 2%
`
`nickel in the remaining portion of the alloy having 0.5—5.5% manganese. Thus, for
`
`example one combination of the claimed composition could be 54 wt% Ag, 41.01 wt% -
`
`Cu, 1.99 wt% Ni, and 3.wt°/o Mn. The examiner concluded that such a small difference
`
`(0.51 wt% difference between 1.99 wt% Ni and 2.5 wt% Ni) in the range of nickel
`
`content with respect to this particular brazing alloy is negligible with regard to the
`
`brazing conditions of the alloy. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art to modify the invention of Haskell to include the wider range of nickel including
`
`a lower value encompassing 1.99 wt% Ni of the total brazing alloy in order to obtain
`
`desirable high wetting ability so that a firm bond can'be created between the steel parts
`
`joined together (Haskell, column 1, lines 42-44).
`
`It is also the examiner’s position that
`
`the amounts in question are so close that is it prima facieobvious that one skilled in the
`
`art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Meta/s Corp. v.
`
`Banner, 227 USPQ 773. Furthermore, within this range of the brazing composition, the
`
`appellants have claimed the same temperature range between 900-1050 °C as claimed.
`
`with regard to the claimed compositions including up to about 2.5% Ni in claims 7 and
`
`14. Thus, the examiner understands even this slight 0.51 wt% difference in nickel
`
`between claims 7 and 10 does not lead to any significant temperature changes when
`
`brazing on ferrous articles-or any significant compositional changes that would affect
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`Page 18
`
`brazing in an adverse or different manner than the brazing material of Haskell and claim
`
`7.
`
`Appellants argue the merits of claim 8 noting that “there is nothing in Haskell
`
`which teaches or suggest heating the article and the brazing material" (Appeal Brief,
`
`page 11). The examiner disagrees. The examiner would like to point out that Haskell
`
`meets the claim limitation for “heating the article" by stating, “cooling following the
`
`brazing operation" (Haskell, column 1, lines 38—41). This teaching clearly implies that
`
`heating of the bodies (articles) occurred during the brazing process (hence the
`
`necessity to cool following the brazing process). Haskell also meets the claim limitation
`
`for “and heating the brazing material" via teaching the properties of a good brazing
`
`material (Haskell, column 1, lines 54-60) and refers to elements which are undesired
`because they lower the melting point of the brazing composition; thus, further implying
`
`that the brazing composition is heated to a melting temperature during the brazing step
`
`(Haskell, column 2, lines 19-25). Furthermore, the examiner points out that brazing is a
`
`well known process to one of ordinary skill in the art, and the steps of brazing include
`
`“the assembled parts and brazing filler metal reach a temperature high enough to melt
`
`the filler metal but not the parts" (Schwartz, p. 110, col. 1, Mechanics of Brazing). Thus,
`
`Haskell’s general teaching of a brazing proCess necessarily includes the general
`
`teaching of brazing which includes heating both the articles to be joined and the brazing
`
`material until the brazing material melts and joins the articles together.
`
`Appellants then argue that Haskell fails to teach or suggest the. claimed heating
`
`step of claim 14 (Appeal Brief, page 12). The examiner disagrees. Haskell states, “this
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 11/185,619
`
`Page 19
`
`Art Unit: 1725
`
`invention relates to alloys particularly suited for solder and brazing purposes, and is
`
`concerned more particularly with the novel alloy especially adapted for uniting metal
`
`carbide—containing bodies to steel—supporting bodies” (Haskell, column 1, lines 1-5).
`
`The simple definition of brazing implies that heating must occur at a temperature high
`
`enough to melt the brazing material (see Schwartz, p. 110, column 1, Mechanics of
`
`Brazing); thus, it is clearly implied by Haskell's disclosure of brazing in order “unite"
`
`bodies (including ferrous steel bodies) that heating must occur during the brazing
`
`process. Also, Haskell states, “cooling following the brazing operation” (Haskell, column
`
`‘ 1, lines 38-41), which also clearly implies that brazing is carried out at an elevated '
`
`temperature (hence the necessity to cool following the brazing process).
`
`Appellants