Appeal No. 1997-0538
Application No. 08/262,168
Kim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art. See Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., 874 F.2d 804, 807, 10
USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975
(1989); In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681, 133 USPQ 275, 280
(CCPA 1962). Note that the transitional phrase “consisting
essentially” recited in claim 3, when read in light of the
specification, does not preclude the presence of boron. See
In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461, 463-64 (CCPA
1976). Note also that appellants have not demonstrated that
the presence of boron materially changes the basic and novel
characteristics of the gamma titanium aluminide alloy. In re
Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 873-874, 143 USPQ 256, 258-59 (CCPA
1964)
Appellants argue that Kim does not teach “the step of
heat treating ... at a temperature from about 45F to about
200F [sic, 45 F to about 200 F] above the temperature of theo o
step of consolidating” recited in claim 7. We do not agree.
We find that Kim’s temperature conditions for the shaping and
heat treatment indicated supra overlap the temperature recited
in claim 7. Accordingly, we conclude that it would have been
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007