Appeal No. 2002-1752
Application 09/180,464
teaching in the prior art which supports her assertions of what
is “known in the art” or “commonly done” in producing alloys.
See In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364, 63 USPQ2d 2002, 2006 (Fed.
Cir. 2002)(quoting In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344-45, 61 USPQ2d
1430, 1435 (Fed. Cir. 2002))(reliance on “common knowledge and
common sense” do not fulfill the requirement to provide reasons
in support of findings of obviousness). See also, In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999)(“[T]he best defense against the subtle but powerful
attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness analysis is rigorous
application of the requirement for a showing of the teaching or
motivation to combine prior art references.”)
Based on our review of the ASM Handbook, we are in
agreement with appellants that the discussion of quenching after
solution heat treatment refers to a cooling stage which occurs
prior to reheating of the workpiece to dissolve precipitated
phases. See Appeal Brief, page 5, fourth paragraph. In
particular, we note that the ASM Handbook refers to precipitation
heat treating after quenching. Page 851, first column, second
paragraph. Further, the ASM Handbook notes that “the solid
solution formed during solution heat treatment must be quenched
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007