Appeal No. 1998-0187
Application No. 08/247,518
In applying the test for obviousness, we reach the 1
conclusion that it would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art, from a combined assessment of the
teachings of the applied prior art, to fabricate a ceramic cup
having an integral body and handle, a conventional design as
acknowledged by the appellant (Brief, p. 6) and as shown by
Sims and Kliegel, using the injection molding process taught
by Matsuhisa or Sterzel. We note that Sterzel teaches an
injection molding process that avoids the formation of
microcracks in the ceramic molding and “ensures the production
of geometrically complicated moldings with high productivity”
(col. 1, ll. 26-52). In addition, injection molding was well
known in the art prior to the appellant’s invention to be
particularly suitable for molding difficult shapes and thin
walls and was known to process certain cost advantages over
other molding processes. In our view, one of ordinary skill2
1The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1881).
2Myron L. Begeman et al., Manufacturing Processes, 277
(1963). (copy enclosed)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007