Appeal No. 95-2721 Page 8
Application No. 08/054,927
on § 103 must rest on a factual basis with these facts being
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art. The examiner may not, because of doubt
that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation,
unfounded assumption or hindsight reconstruction to supply
deficiencies in the factual basis for the rejection. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967),
cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied
by the examiner in this rejection of the claims on appeal.
Sachdeva discloses an orthodontic bracket. Sachdeva
teaches (column 4, lines 50-52) that the material for the
orthodontic bracket is not limited to commercially pure
titanium, but may comprise any titanium based alloy.
Takahashi discloses (column 2, lines 16-17) that $-type
titanium alloys such as Ti-15Mo-5Zr and Ti-15Mo-5Zr-3Al have
been used as as an erosion-shielding material for steam
turbine blades made of a Ti-6Al-4V alloy.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007