Appeal No. 1998-2702
Application No. 08/466,507
4, from which claim 5 depends) are disclosed by Bertolini.
Thus, Bertolini anticipates the subject matter of claim 5.
The same reasoning causes us to reach a like result with
regard to independent claim 7. This claim also is a product-
by-process claim, in that it is directed to a
“superplastically formed part.” While the method of forming
the part in Bertolini might differ from that set forth in
claim 7, the resulting part meets the structural requirements
of claim 7, in that it has a male topographic feature
protruding in at least one portion of a female configuration,
with the male feature defining a steeply sloped wall of
substantially uniform thickness. The rejection of claim 7 is
affirmed.4
The Rejection Of Claims 5 And 7 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
As we concluded above, all of the subject matter recited
in claims 5 and 7 is disclosed in Bertolini; we consider the
showing of Nakamura merely to be confirmatory. Anticipation
being the epitome of obviousness (see In re Fracalossi, 681
4While the presence of subparagraph (c) of claim 7 goes
to the method of manufacture, we note that there appears to be
no support in the original disclosure for “trimming the bulge
from the formed blank,” and thus it runs afoul of 35 U.S.C. §
112, first paragraph.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007