Appeal No. 95-3288
Application 08/148,020
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
We note that Charles teaches an optically translucent
alumina ceramic. See column 1, lines 4-5. We note that all of
the Appellants' claims recite "optically opaque, heat-resistant
and electrically insulative alumina shield." We note that
Charles is entirely concerned with solving the problem of pro-
viding an optically translucent alumina ceramic. In column 1,
lines 21-48, Charles teaches that it is known in the prior art
that MgO, at a small level, is a necessary constituent in alumina
ceramics if a high degree of translucency is to be obtained in
the sintering process. Charles further teaches that the prior
art processes result in an excess of MgO which forms second phase
inclusions. These second phase inclusions are undesirable as
they contribute to light scattering and decrease the degree of
translucency. Charles discloses in column 2, lines 5-30, a
process that ensures the proper amount of MgO so as to provide
an optically translucent alumina.
Furthermore, we fail to find any suggestion of using
the Charles ceramic as an optically opaque, heat-resistant and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007