Appeal No. 1998-1154
Application No. 08/304,960
partial pressure between 5 x 10-6 and 1 x 10-3 torr (Answer,
page 6). The examiner further finds that Armini specifically
discloses a Ti-6Al-4V alloy which is “generally suggestive of
titanium aluminum alloys for treatment, ie [sic] metal alloys
containing Al as well as Ti.” Id. The examiner concludes
that since Armini has a concern for the prevention of
corrosion similar to the primary references, as well as a
teaching of producing a protective surface oxide layer, it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of
protective oxide surface coatings to use the ion implantation
technique of Armini, including oxygen-containing gases, with
the expectation of analogous desirable results. Id.
It is well settled that the initial burden of presenting
a prima facie case of obviousness rests with the examiner.
See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). It is also well established that before a
conclusion of obviousness can be made based on a combination
of references, there must have been a reason, suggestion or
motivation to lead an inventor to combine those references.
Pro-Mold and Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics Inc., 75 F.3d
1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Evidence
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007