Appeal No. 1997-0538
Application No. 08/262,168
obvious to employ the claimed temperature conditions in Kim’s
process, with a reasonable expectation of forming the desired
titanium aluminide product described in Kim. See In re Aller,
supra.
In view of the foregoing and the reasons set forth by the
examiner in his Answer, we agree with the examiner that the
subject matter of claims 1 through 4, 7, 8, 13 and 19 would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Hence,
we affirm the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through
4, 7, 8, 13 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
the disclosure of Kim.
However, the examiner’s rejection of method claims 1
through 7, 9 through 12 and 14 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over the disclosure of Larsen is on a
different footing. Although we agree with the examiner that
Larsen discloses temperature conditions for both hot
isostatical pressing (consolidation) and heat treating steps,
which appear to be within the claimed temperature range, see
column 3, line 60 to column 4, line 7, we agree with
appellants that Larsen by itself does not provide a suggestion
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007