Appeal No. 95-1042
Application 07/964,002
is one which has been formed into a desired structure, the
teaching in this portion of the reference regarding casting a
ceramic preform film on a fugitive support and removing the
support by vaporizing it would have indicated to one of ordinary
skill in the art that vaporizing a fugitive support is an
effective method for removing the support from a green ceramic
preform which has been formed on it. Thus, this teaching would
have indicated to such a person that peeling a support from a
green ceramic preform prior to sintering, and vaporizing the
support during sintering, are alternative ways for removing a
support from a green ceramic preform which has been formed
thereon.
Appellants argue that Parks teaches directly away from
appellants’ invention by teaching that the support should be
removed prior to sintering the ceramic (brief, pages 6-7).
Appellants argue that “while Cleveland references the use of
fugitive sheet materials for honeycomb fabrication in the prior
art, the clear teaching of the reference is to avoid such use in
favor of a self-supporting green sheet” (brief, page 10; emphasis
in original).
Cleveland teaches, in the prior art portion quoted above,
that using a fugitive support has a disadvantage when cellular
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007