B. Discussion
1.
We have found that there is one difference between the prior
art, cooling at a particular rate, but that Shafer suggests to
one skilled in the art that cooling occur incrementally.
We agree with the examiner that the precise rate of cooling
is not described by Shafer--if it were, then the examiner would
have rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Shafer.
However, we also find that Shafer tells one skilled in the art
that incremental cooling is one way to effect crystallization.
We further find that Shafer would suggest to one skilled in the
art that for any given process the degree at which the material
is cooled is a result oriented variable to be determined by one
skilled in the art on a case-by-case basis through routine
experimentation. Cf. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16
USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (where the difference
between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or
other variable within the claims, the applicant must show that
the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the
claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior
art range). Substantial evidence supports the examiner's § 103
rejection.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007