Appeal No. 96-2060
Application No. 08/308,205
examiner which would provide a person of ordinary skill in
this art with the requisite motivation to limit the rate of
temperature rise to a relatively slow 3° - 100°C./hour from
ambient temperature upward, subsequent to the intermediate
thermo-mechanical treatment step. Rioja teaches limiting the
heating rate only after the temperature has reached an
elevated temperature of 750°F to 800°F.
Simply put, the examiner has not met his burden of
explaining why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious, within the context of 35 U.S.C. § 103, to
limit the heating rate from ambient temperature onwards.
Merely stating that a claimed feature would have been obvious
without adequate explanation or factual support is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
See In re Cofer, 354 F.2d 664, 667, 148 USPQ 268, 271 (CCPA
1966).
Because we reverse on the basis of failure to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness, we need not reach the issue
of the sufficiency of appellants’ showing of unexpected
results in the declaration of Dr. Flitcroft, as referred to in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007