Appeal No. 94-4428
Application 08/024,034
Levy in Strangman’s process ?to crystallize the deposited
amorphous alumina films as stated in the specification, page
7, lines 14 through 31?.
Appellant points out that Strangman is directed to the
superalloy art for the formation of articles of the type used
as gas turbine parts while Lory is directed to the art of
integrated circuits. Thus appellant contends, and we agree,
that the teachings of these references cannot be legitimately
combined because they are from different arts. No disclosure
in Lory, in our view, is reasonably pertinent to the
particular problem with which appellant is involved, which
problem may be broadly characterized as the spalling of
alumina scales caused as the result of the difference between
the coefficient of thermal expansion of an underlying
superalloy structure and alumina. Again, see the
specification at page 2, lines 3 through 10. Thus, we agree
with appellant that Lory cannot be characterized as ?analogous?
art. See, for example, In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442, 230
USPQ 313, 315 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032,
1036, 202 USPQ 171, 174 (CCPA 1979).
We further observe that the examiner’s contention that it
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007