Appeal No. 1998-2702
Application No. 08/466,507
wall being substantially uniformly thick where conventional
superplastic forming would produce a tapered thickness. We
agree with the examiner that this is found in Nakamura, and
therefore the reference anticipates the structure recited in 3
claim 4. To wit, Nakamura is directed to a superplastic
molded part, is concerned
with the same problem as the appellant’s invention
(translation, pages 2 and 3), and discloses (in the figure
shown on the lower right on patent page 123) a part having two
deep draw corners that have a substantially uniform thickness
with the adjacent walls (translation, page 6). Nakamura
considers this to be an improvement over the part made by
conventional means, which has a tapered thickness on its walls
and bottom (figure shown on the lower right on patent page
122).
In view of this showing in Nakamura, it is our opinion
that the burden has been shifted to the appellant to provide
evidence that there are unobvious differences in structure
3Anticipation is established when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles
of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.
See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671,
1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007