Appeal No. 1998-2265
Application No. 08/498,482
direction in which the experimentation should proceed...”
Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404.
As pointed out by the appellants (appeal brief, page 4),
the specification contains a written description stating that
the “solution heat treating” step is known to those skilled in
the relevant art. (Page 5.) Given this description, together
with other guidance in the form of a specific example (1060EC
for 15 minutes) of a solution heat treatment step (id.; claim
7), it is our view that one skilled in the relevant art could
have easily determined as a matter of routine experimentation
what temperatures and times for the solution heat treatment
step would provide the here claimed “grain size of at most 10
Fm.” The same is also true for the “recrystallization heat
treating” step given the specification description at pages 6-
8. Accordingly, we determine that one skilled in the relevant
art could have easily determined, without any need for undue
experimentation, as to which specific conditions would provide
a “grain size of at most 10 Fm” as recited in appealed claim
6, the sole independent claim on appeal.
Moreover, appealed claim 6 does not read on any
conditions for the “solution heat treating” and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007