Appeal No. 1995-4981
Application No. 08/248,583
substantially prevent reaction between the fibrous material
and the infiltrating silicon. See column 3, lines 58-66.
Rousseau, however, does not teach that the nitride of
aluminum, zirconium or hafnium is equivalent to boron nitride
for the purpose of preventing reaction between the fibrous
material and the infiltrating silicon. See column 3, lines 5-
15. In fact, we observe that Rousseau teaches away from using
the nitrides involved in an environment where molten silicon
(infiltrating silicon) is involved. See column 3, line 20.
Absent the appellants' own teachings, we can think of no
cogent reason why one of ordinary skill in this art would have
been motivated to employ the nitride of aluminum, zirconium or
hafnium, in lieu of boron nitride, on the fibers of the fiber
reinforced composite described in Borom. As the court in
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5
USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988) stated, "it is
impermissible to use the claims as a frame and the prior art
references as a mosaic to piece together a facsimile of the
claimed invention."
In view of the foregoing, we reverse the examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 10 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007