Appeal No. 95-2315
Application 07/917,670
discloses that age hardenable nickel base alloys can be used as a binder in place of the 80Ni20Cr alloy
in chromium carbide-metal alloy coatings, this reference is directed to “rubbing surfaces” of “liquid-Na
fast breeder reactors” and, thus, is non-analogous art because it is not directed to the same field of
endeavor, face contact fluid seals,6 or reasonably pertinent to the same problem, “local ‘hot spots’,”
addressed by appellants (see specification, page 9; principal brief, pages 5 and 8; reply brief, page 2).
In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658-59, 23 USPQ2d 1058, 1060-61 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Even assuming
that Wolfla et al. did provide the requisite suggestion and reasonable expectation of success to
interchange the alloy binders, as recognized by the examiner, this reference does not suggest heat
treating the resulting coating. However, the examiner’s reliance on McComas et al. to generally
demonstrate heat treatment of carbide-alloy coatings, such as the coatings disclosed by Wolfla et al., is
misplaced as this combination would not have reasonably suggested the heat treatment of the coating of
Wolfla et al. to one of ordinary skill in this art. Keller, supra. Indeed, the coatings disclosed by
McComas et al. contain different amounts of different carbides (e.g., col. 3, lines 8-10 and 27-30, col.
4, lines 62-63, and col. 5, lines 35-55), the alloy is not an “age hardenable nickel based alloy” and the
heat treatment mechanism suggested by this reference does not result in a “hardened alloy” (e.g., col. 4,
lines 38-44, and col. 5, lines 35-41). Furthermore, based on these teachings of McComas et al., even
if one of ordinary skill in this art did substitute the alloy of this reference for the 80Ni20Cr alloy of the
admittedly old coatings, as alternatively suggested by the examiner (answer, page 9), the combination
would not have resulted in appellants’ claimed invention. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837
F.2d 1044, 1050-54, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438-41 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
6 As a matter of claim construction, the phrase “face contact fluid seal” in appealed claim 1 when
considered in the context of the claimed invention as a whole, including consideration thereof in light of
the specification, must be given weight as a claim limitation which characterizes the product of the
claimed article of manufacture in order to give meaning to the claims and properly define the invention.
See generally In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1262, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1781 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing
Perkin-Elmer Corp. v. Computervision Corp., 732 F.2d 888, 896, 221 USPQ 669, 675 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 857 [225 USPQ 792] (1984), Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec.
U.S.A., Inc., 868 F.2d 1251, 1257, 9 USPQ2d 1962, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1989), In re Stencel, 828
F.2d 751, 754-55, 4 USPQ2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007