Appeal No. 96-2682
Application 08/145,269
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984). In addition, the Federal Circuit reasons in
Para-Ordnance Mfg., 73 F.3d at 1087-88, 37 USPQ2d at 1239-40,
that for the determination of obviousness, the court must answer
whether one of ordinary skill in the art who sets out to solve
the problem, and who had before him in his workshop the prior
art, would have been reasonably expected to use the solution
that is claimed by the Appellants.
We find that those skilled in the art having the
teachings of Driessen before them would have made an alloy that
would have been within the ranges of the percentages of tungsten
and molybdenum as recited in Appellants’ claim 1 because the
breadth of the claimed ranges would include many possible alloys
as well those suggested by Driessen. Therefore, we find that it
would have been obvious to one skilled in the art in view of the
teachings of Driessen to make an electrode lead for a lamp com-
prised of an alloy comprised of between about 10 to 90 percent by
weight tungsten and about 10 to 90 percent by weight molybdenum
as recited in Appellants’ claim 1.
Appellants argue that Driessen does not teach a lamp
including a hermetic seal between a tungsten and molybdenum alloy
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007