Appeal No. 1997-0538
Application No. 08/262,168
in Kim and Larsen, we determine that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of unpatentability with respect
to the claimed titanium aluminide within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. § 102. See also In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15
USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The burden is, therefore, on appellants to show that the
gamma titanium aluminide product described in Kim or Larsen
does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the
claimed gamma titanium aluminide product. Thorp, supra;
Brown, supra. However, appellants do not refer to any
evidence to show that the prior art titanium aluminide product
does not necessarily possess characteristics and/or properties
attributed to the claimed titanium aluminide product. See
Brief and Reply Brief in their entirety. Rather, appellants
state that their invention lies in a method of making a gamma
titanium aluminide product having the above-mentioned desired
properties in a more consistent and controlled manner. See
specification, pages 1 and 2, particularly page 2, lines 15-
21. In other words, appellants appear to acknowledge that
appellants’ invention is directed to a new process for making
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007