Appeal No. 2002-2080
Application 09/358,484
reasonably disclosed to one of ordinary skill in this art at least a process for preparing an
aluminum nitride ceramic having a dense smooth surface, falling within the claimed surface
characteristics, formed from several layer of paste oxide glass applied directly to a surface of an
aluminum nitride article that falls within the claimed process encompassed by appealed claim 21.
Appellants submit that the process of appealed claim 24 is not suggested by either
reference, particularly since Toyoda teaches that all of the applied paste oxide layers are sintered
together (brief, pages 8-9). The examiner contends that the teachings of Kondo suggest sintering
after the application of each layer, and thus the combined references would have suggested the
claimed process of appealed claim 24 (answer, page 7). We agree with the examiner that one of
ordinary skill in this art following the combined teachings of the references would have found
therein the suggestion that sintering layers applied to the surface of an aluminum nitride article
can be accomplished after the application of each paste oxide glass layer or after all of the paste
oxide glass layers have been applied.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Kondo and Toyoda
with appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude
that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 21 through 25, 28 through 30 and
34 would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
On this record, we agree with appellants that the examiner has not established that,
prima facie, the process encompassed by appealed claims 32 and 35 would have been within
the ordinary skill in this art. Appellants correctly point out that the disclosure at page 6 of the
specification is not an admission of prior art as contended by the examiner (reply brief, page 3).
Thus, the record does not contain evidence that supports the examiner’s position that the
composition of the aluminum nitride containing article specified in appealed claim 32 would
have been within the ordinary skill in this art. Similarly, we agree with appellants that neither
Kondo nor Toyoda teaches the application of a layer of paste oxide glass to a preform
containing aluminum nitride, and thus do not support the examiner’s position (reply brief,
pages 2-3). Accordingly, we reverse the ground of rejection with respect to appealed claims 32
and 35.
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007