Appeal no. 97-1293
Application no. 08/281,812
The examiner recognizes that Lukacs does not teach titanium diboride but points to
Lucaks’ teaching that “(a)ny ceramic powder can be used” (col. 4, lines 61-62) and cites
Yajima to show a process of producing a similar composition with titanium diboride as the
ceramic powder. The examiner explained at p. 5 of his Answer (paragraphs combined):
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to use titanium diboride, such as that taught by Yajima et al., in the
process of Lukacs in view of this teaching to obtain a final product having the
desired physical properties.
The examiner also states that the temperature and other parameters would have
been obvious. At p. 5 of his Answer, he says:
Determination of the specific sintering temperature, particle sizes and ingredient
amounts would have been well within the realm of routine experimentation to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. These parameters would
have obviously been selected to optimize the process conditions (e.g. total process
time) and/or the properties of the final product (e.g. strength).
The appellant argues at pp. 3-17 of his Appeal Brief that the examiner has failed to
set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. According to the appellant, Lukacs and
Yajima, individually or in combination, do not teach or suggest the claim limitations of
sintering temperatures, polymer char characteristics, and density of the sintered body. The
appellant further asserts that Yajima only teaches titanium diboride as one of 136 different
ceramic powders and provides no guidance for one skilled in the art to pick out titanium
diboride.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007