Appeal No. 95-0112
Application 07/787,994
thermal stability, one skilled in the art would have no reason4
to maintain the temperature of the heat treatment at the minimum
600E C temperature, which according to claim 1 is essential in
order to produce a superplastic steel. Although the examiner
urges us to believe that one of ordinary skill in the
metallurgical art would have been motivated to select a heat
treatment temperature of 600E C from the disclosed range of 600E
to 1100E C, he has given us no reasons based on the teachings of
Giessen, or knowledge generally available in the art, as to why
one would have done so.
Thus, on this record, the only thread we find which ties
together all the essential alloy components and the temperature
range required by claim 1 is the appellant’s disclosure. The
examiner has not begun to establish that based on the teachings
of the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to select the claimed components and temperature
range in order to produce superplastic steel. In our opinion the
examiner has relied on “hindsight” to arrive at the conclusion
that the present invention is obvious over the prior art. In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir.
4 Giessen, col. 4, lines 8-11.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007