Appeal No. 1999-0405 Application No. 08/651,571 Appellants assert that the Hattori reference is non- analogous art because it is not within appellants’ field of endeavor (i.e., molten metal pumps/impellers) or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem that appellants address (i.e., attaching a silicon carbide bearing ring to a graphite impeller of a molten metal pump). Appellants also argue that Hattori is not even a general teaching on mating of two components, because it is specific to the bonding of fluorine resin articles, and that, even if it were analogous art, there is no motivation or justification supporting the examiner’s proposed combinations with Thut and Cooper since 1) the applied references do not in any way recognize a problem with the attachment of a bearing ring to a molten metal pump impeller and 2) there is no justification for applying the teachings of Hattori relating to bonding fluorine resin articles to metal to a structure involving attaching a silicon carbide bearing ring to a graphite impeller which is to be immersed in molten metal as in Thut and Cooper. In this regard, appellants assert that the examiner has employed an improper "obvious to try" standard of patentability and relied 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007