Appeal No. 95-3209
Application No. 08/020,304
is shown by Takizawa to be well known in the prior art. We
also agree with the examiner’s conclusion that an artisan with
ordinary skill would have found it obvious to determine
workable or even optimum temperatures for this heating step,
thereby achieving the temperature range defined by the here
rejected claims. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d, 272, 276, 205 USPQ
215, 219 (CCPA 1980).
According to the appellants, Takizawa “does not teach or
suggest drawing while in a partially molten state, since most
wire drawing systems, if the wire were in a partially molten
condition at the time of drawing, would result in breaking or
tearing apart of the wire” (Supplemental Reply Brief, page 3).
As correctly indicated by the examiner, however, this argument
is unsupported by evidence and accordingly is unpersuasive for
this reason alone. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181
USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974). Additionally, the argument is
controverted by our previous discussion concerning Yamamoto’s
disclosure in columns 5 and 11 in which we explained that
patentee’s composite material would be in a partially molten
condition when conducting the sintering and shaping (e.g., die
drawing) operations at the upper temperature limit. Finally,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007