Appeal No. 1997-0545
Application 08/224,063
claim 92 is obvious under § 103. In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA
1982).
Turning now to Olson, we find that the processes disclosed in this reference begin with the
hydration of alkali metal metasilicate by heating an aqueous solution of anhydrous alkali metal
metasilicate to about 35° to 99° C; allowing the temperature of this ingredient to fall below about 65° C;
adding a “hydrated alkali metal condensed phosphate having water of hydration sufficient to increase the
rate of the solidification of the cast composition;” cooling the mixture “to a temperature below about 55°
C, preferably about 48° to 55° C;” adding other ingredients, including alkali metal hydroxides, “anytime
after hydration of the metasilicate;” casting the mixture into a mold and cooling, causing solidification
(col. 7, lines 1-66; see also Olson Examples 1-4). We find that one of ordinary skill in this art would
have reasonably inferred from this disclosure of Olson that the temperature of the hydrated alkali metal
metasilicate and hydrated alkali metal condensed phosphate mixture was initially greater than 55° C but
could fall, that is, cool, to about 48° to about 55° C prior to the addition of other ingredients such as
alkali metal hydroxides.5
Based on this evidence, we find that the upper portion, that is, above about 50°C, of the
temperature range of about 48° to about 55°C within which the mixture of the hydrated alkali metal
metasilicate and the hydrated alkali metal condensed phosphate is allowed to cool would provide
“externally supplied heat” to that mixture, as we have interpreted this term above. In view of the
overlap in ranges wherein external heat may and may not be supplied as specified by the definition of the
claim term “externally supplied heat,” the claimed process encompass by claim 92 is not described by
Olson within the meaning of § 102(b), and thus we must reverse the
ground of rejection under § 102(b) based on this reference (answer, pages 7-9). See, e.g., In re
Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim,
541 F.2d 257, 267, 191 USPQ 90, 100 (CCPA 1976).
5 In evaluating the teachings of Olson, we must consider the specific teachings thereof and the
inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007