Appeal No. 1997-0538
Application No. 08/262,168
a known gamma titanium aluminide product having the above-
mentioned desired properties. Thus, we are persuaded that
appellants have not supplied sufficient evidence to carry
their burden of proof. Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 8, 13 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
(a) and (e) over the disclosures of Kim and Larsen,
respectively.
Section 103 Rejections
The examiner has rejected claims 1-4, 8, 13 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the disclosure of Kim. Under
Section 103, the obviousness of an invention cannot be estab-
lished by combining the teachings of the cited prior art
references absent some teaching, suggestion or incentive
supporting the combination. See ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v.
Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933
(Fed. Cir. 1984). This does not mean that the prior art
references must specifically suggest making the combination.
See B.F. Goodrich Co. V. Aircraft Braking Systems Corp., 72
F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 USPQ2d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007