Appeal No. 1998-2534
Application No. 08/533,366
reasoning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness
(Answer, page 3). A general statement that hysteresis data
shows the behavior of a material under cyclic loading
conditions (id.) is not sufficient evidence alone as to why
one of ordinary skill in the art would have used hysteresis
data analysis to determine the stretch conditions to achieve
the desired final properties of Himelreich. See In re
Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999)(The showing of evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or
motivation must be clear and particular). The examiner’s
finding that Himelreich teaches cyclic testing to determine
dynamic creep (Answer, pages 3-4) similarly provides no
evidence that the analysis of hysteresis data would have been
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Appellant
submits that dynamic creep measures totally different
properties than those analyzed with hysteresis data (Reply
Brief, page 2). The examiner has not challenged this
statement.
The examiner has not presented any evidence or reasoning
that hysteresis data was ever known or considered by one of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007