Appeal No. 1997-0538
Application No. 08/262,168
sufficient to employ a step of determining the claimed alpha-
transus temperature, see Larsen in its entirety. We find that
Larsen does not recognize the importance of using a
temperature below the alpha-transus temperature of a given
alloy. Rather, it employs a temperature range generally
applicable to the particular alloys it used, which happens to
fall within the claimed temperature range. There is no reason
or incentive in Larsen to determine the alpha transus
temperature of a given alloy. Moreover, contrary to the
examiner’s argument at page 9 of the Answer, this step is more
than a mere mental step as is apparent from pages 6 through 8
of the specification. Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1 through 7, 9 through 12 and 14
through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the
disclosure of Larsen.
With respect to the examiner's rejection of product
claims 8, 13 and 19 under section 103, we affirm for the
reasons indicated supra. Thorp, supra; Brown, supra.
In summary:
1) The rejection of claims 13 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite is reversed;
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007