Appeal No. 1997-3335 Page 7
Application No. 08/315,454
behave the same way in the solution process as they do in the powder and melt processes. From the
evidence on the record, there is no basis to believe that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
reasonably expected the boron compounds of the secondary references to reduce the 525-800°C
annealing temperature of Lipeles in the same way the boron compounds reduce the firing temperatures
of the powder processes. We note that the firing temperatures of Abe, Takagi and Soong are all above
800°C . Absent from the applied prior art is the requisite suggestion or motivation for combining the3
applied reference teachings, based upon a reasonable expectation of success, in such a manner as to
result in the Appellants’ claimed subject matter. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 903-904, 7 USPQ2d
1673, 1680-1681 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With respect to claim 1, we also note that Bhargava specifies using 18-32 mole % boron oxide
and 18-32 mole % titanium oxide. Thus, the molar ratio of boron to titanium is 18:32 to 32:18 which
converts to 0.56 to 1.8. Claim 1 requires a boron to titanium ratio of between 0.001 and 0.01. Even if
there was a reason, suggestion or motivation to use the boron compound of Bhargava in the solution of
Lipeles, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to use a much higher amount of boron than
called for by claim 1.
3Abe teaches firing at temperatures of 962°C or lower, preferably 900°C or lower (col. 5, lines
17-22) or around 900°C (col. 13, lines 39-42). Takagi describes firing at temperatures of 800 to
1350°C (col. 5, lines 24-27). Soong describes firing at temperatures of 2050°F, i.e. 1121°C (col. 2,
lines 24-27).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007