Docket No.: 085.104528 US(00—749-3)
`Appl. No. 11/185,619
`Request for Reconsideration dated June 13, 2006
`Reply to office action of March 14, 2006
`
`REMARKS/ARGUMENTS
`
`Re—examination and favorable reconsideration in light of
`
`the above amendments and the following comments are respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`Claims 7 — 14 are pending in the application. Currently,
`
`all claims have been rejected.
`
`In the office action mailed October 31, 2005, claims 7 — 13
`
`were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`U.S. Patent No. 2,303,272 to Haskell; and claim 14 was rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Haskell in
`
`View of U.S. Patent No. 2,138,638 to Leach.
`
`The foregoing rejections are traversed by the instant
`
`response.
`
`With respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 7 — 13
`
`on obviousness grounds over Haskell, claims 7, 8, 9, and 10 are
`
`each allowable for the same reason over Haskell. 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. 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 product. Once
`
`again,
`
`the Examiner has not supplied any secondary reference
`
`which would teach or suggest heating both the article and the
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 085.10452B US(00-749-3)
`Appl. No. 11/185,619
`Request for Reconsideration dated June 13, 2006
`Reply to office action of March 14, 2006
`
`brazing material to the claimed temperature range and has not
`
`indicated what would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art
`
`to perform such a step. Thus,
`
`the Examiner has not complied
`
`with the requirements for setting forth a prima facie case of
`
`obviousness.
`
`The brazing temperature used in Haskell is not
`
`insignificant because the alloy in Haskell is specifically
`
`designed to join hard metal carbide bodies to steel bodies.
`
`The
`
`issue is not at what temperature does 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 this question is unknown since Haskell does not
`
`provide 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. 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.
`
`Applicant agrees 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.
`
`The
`
`problem with Haskell is that it does not contain any teachings
`
`
`
`Docket No.: 085.10452B US(00—749—3)
`Appl. No. 11/185,619
`Request for Reconsideration dated June 13, 2006
`Reply to office action of March 14, 2006
`
`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 that is excluded from amended claim 9.
`
`Thus,
`
`there is nothing in Haskell that would teach or suggest the
`
`brazing applying material step of claim 9.
`
`The Examiner’s
`
`comments concerning claim 9 are duly noted. Applicant is not
`
`required to show any unexpected results when the Examiner has
`
`failed to make out 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, “[t]he 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 eliminate nickel from the alloy.
`
`Claim 10 is further allowable because Haskell requires the
`
`presence of a minimum nickel content of 2.5 wt%. Therefore,
`
`Haskell does not teach or suggest, and never would,
`
`the brazing
`
`applying material step of claim 10 and in particular the
`
`proportions set forth in the claim.
`
`No matter what the
`
`manganese content of the brazing applying material,
`
`the nickel
`
`content must always be less than 2.0 wt% in-the invention set
`
`
`
`Docket N0.: 085.104523 US(00-749-3)
`I
`Appl. No. 11/185,619
`Request for Reconsideration dated June 13, 2006
`Reply to office action of March 14, 2006
`
`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%.
`
`Claims 11 — 13 are allowable for the same reasons as claim
`
`7, as well as on their own accord.
`
`*
`
`With regard to the rejection of claim 14 over Haskell and
`
`Leach, it is submitted that the Examiner misapplies Leach.
`
`Leach does not only teach brazing a stainless steel material, it
`
`teaches using a silver—copper—manganese-nickel brazing material
`
`that includes silicon. 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 stainless steel materials.
`
`In other words, Leach is a 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 references.
`
`If anything, one would be
`
`motivated to use a brazing material other than what is set forth
`
`in the claim.
`
`For these reasons, claim 14 is allowable as
`
`amended.
`
`For the foregoing reasons,
`
`the instant application is
`
`believed to be in condition for allowance.
`
`Such allowance is
`
`respectfully solicited.
`
`A notice of appeal is enclosed herewith.
`
`
`
`Docket No.:
`Appl. No. 11/185,619
`Request for Reconsideration dated June 13, 2006
`Reply to office action of March 14, 2006
`
`085.10452B(00—749-3)
`
`Should the Examiner believe an additional amendment is
`
`needed to place the case in condition for allowance,
`
`the
`
`Examiner is hereby invited to contact Applicants’ attorney at
`
`the telephone number listed below.
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge the notice of
`
`appeal fee of $500.00 to Deposit Account No. 21—0279.
`
`Should
`
`the Director determine that an additional fee is due, he is
`
`hereby authorized to charge said fee to said Deposit Account.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`& LaPOINTE, P.C.
`
`BAC
`
`Reg. No. 29,999
`
`Attorney for Applicants
`
`(203)777-6628 ext. 112
`Telephone:
`Telefax:
`(203)865—0297
`
`Email: docket@bachlap.com
`
`Date: June 13, 2006
`
`I, Karen M. Gill, hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first
`class m il in an en
`ope addressed to: “Commissioner for Patents, PO. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313" on June 13, 2006.
`
`
`
`
