Appeal No. 2001-1464 Page 3
Application No. 09/141,499
Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Okada in view of Taylor and Latham.
Claims 22 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Okada in view of Taylor and Tsuchiya.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final rejection
and answer (Paper Nos. 5 and 10) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections and to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 7 and 11) for the appellant’s
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Each of independent claims 1, 15 and 32 recites a method of forming an integral
tubular protrusion on a part comprising, inter alia, a step of heating the part to a
temperature at which the material of which the part is made exhibits superplastic
properties. This step requires both a part made of a material which is capable of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007