Appeal No. 1998-1772 Page 8
Application No. 08/578,047
Claim 1
In applying the above-noted test for obviousness, we
reach the conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to have modified the Figure 4 embodiment of Brooks to (1)
maintain a constant cooling zone by moving Brooks' cylindrical
container 37 away from the tundish 10, nozzle 12 and gas
atomiser 13 as suggested by Ashok's teachings to inhibit the 6
formation of coarse dendrites as taught by Ashok, and (2) form
a die casting product as suggested by Sato's teaching instead
of extruding a product since die casting and extruding are
known alternatives of forming a product from a molten metal
alloy.
The appellant first argues (reply brief, pp. 2-3) that
the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight. We do not
agree. When it is necessary to select elements of various
teachings in order to form the claimed invention, we ascertain
whether there is any suggestion or motivation in the prior art
6See especially column 5, lines 33-37, of Ashok.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007