Appeal 2007-0174
Application 09/780,303
an explicit teaching or an implicit suggestion to modify or combine the
teachings of Pepper and Uchida. According to Appellants, “[i]dentifying an
advantage merely shows that, in hindsight, there’s an advantage to
combining the elements [but] does not show an implicit suggestion”
(principal Br. 7, last paragraph). However, as explained by the Examiner,
inasmuch as both Pepper and Uchida are directed to the same field of
endeavor, namely, processing carbon preform fibers into carbon fibers
through stabilization and carbonization, the references are from an
analogous art and, thereby, combinable. Being properly combinable, it is
appropriate to look to the explicit teaching in Uchida regarding the optional,
alternative use of either an oxidizing or non-oxidizing atmosphere in a
carbonization furnace of the type disclosed in Pepper. Also, we find that the
motivation articulated by the Examiner is in accordance with the logic and
sound scientific reasoning that Appellants acknowledge is a valid basis for
establishing motivation (see footnote at page 2 of Appellants’ Reply Brief).
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by the
Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007