Appeal No. 96-2884
Application No. 08/181,997
Appellant argues that Okamura does not conduct the second step at a temperature ranging
o
preferably from about 400 C(claim 16) and more preferably from about 500 to about 600EC
(claim 24) . We do not find this argument persuasive. Initially we point out that the upper
o
end of Okamura’s preferred temperature, about 400 C overlaps that set forth in claim 16. In
re Ayers, 154 F.2d 182, 184, 69 USPQ 109, 111 (CCPA 1946). Further, we point out that
Okamura teaches that contact conditions are suitably selected. Hence, we do not read
Okamura’s teachings as limited to his preferred contact range, but rather to a wider range of
temperatures. Moreover, it is our view that a person of ordinary skill in the art would know
that higher temperatures would not be expected to alter the product but only accelerate the
reaction. Appellant urges that Okamura does not disclose the concentrations of the gas
compositions (claims 5, 15, 19, 29, 31-32, 34 and 38-39). Contrary thereto, Okamura does
teach the use of a gas flow rate (preferred to be 1 to 1000ml S.T.P./min/ per gram of the
starting iron) and also the mixing ratio of reducing and carbonizing agent and the reducing
agent (suitably selected and preferably 0.05 to 1/5 by volume). Appellant describes his gas
composition in terms of mole percent of different gases. However, appellant has not shown
that Okamura’s flow rates and mixing ratios are not those used in the instant claims. In re
Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 U.S.P.Q 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Appellant also urges that
Okamura does not teach the formation of a product in the second step containing at least
about 90 percent by weight of Fe C (claim 37) and of a highly pure product containing small
3
concentrations of free carbon, iron oxide and metallic iron impurities (claims 21, 30, 35 and
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007