Appl. No. 11/185,619
`Amdts dated Jan. 18, 2006
`' Reply to office action of Oct. 31, 2005
`
`Docket No.: EH-10452B(OQ-749-3)
`
`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.
`
`By the present amendment, claim 7 has been amended to add
`
`the words “the steps" in the preamble. Further, claims 9, 10,
`
`and 14 have been placed into independent form.
`
`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 temperature range set forth in
`
`the claims. Haskell is totally silent on the issue. The Examiner
`
`has not supplied any secondary reference which would teach or
`
`suggest the claimed temperature range and has not indicated what
`
`would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to use a
`
`temperature within the claimed range. Thus,
`
`the Examiner has not
`
`complied with the requirements for setting forth a prima facie
`
`case of obviousness. One of ordinary skill in the art could use
`
`a temperature outside the claimed range and obtain a firm bond
`
`between components being joined together. Absent something that
`
`teaches or suggests the claimed range,
`
`the rejection fails.
`
`Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`Appl. No. 11/185,619
`Amdt~. dated Jan. 18, 2006
`Reply to office action of Oct. 31, 2005
`
`Docket No.: EH—10452B(00-749-3)
`
`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.
`
`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 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.
`
`Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`Q
`
`Appl. No. 11/185,619
`Amdt. dated Jan. 18, 2006
`Reply to office action of Oct. 31, 2005
`
`Docket No.: EH-104SZB(00-749-3)
`'
`
`For the foregoing reasons,
`
`the instant application is
`
`believed to be in condition for allowance. Such allowance is
`
`respectfully solicited.
`
`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 extra
`
`independent claim fee of $200.00 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.
`
`Respecthlly submitted,
`
`Wa
`
`en Lin et a1.
`
`
`
`
`
`r y L. Kelmachter
`BACHMAN & LaPOINTE, P.C.
`
`Reg. No. 29,999
`
`'
`
`Attorney for Applicants
`
`(203)777-6628 ext. 112
`Telephone:
`Telefax:
`(203)865—0297
`'
`
`Email: docket@bachlap.com
`
`Date: January 18, 2006
`
`1, Nicole Motzer, hereby certify that this correspondence is being deposited with the United States Postal Service with sufficient postage as first
`class mail in an envelope addressed to: “Commissioner for Patents, P.C. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313" on January 18, 2006.
`
`M
`
`Page 7 of 7
`
`
