Appeal No. 1998-0242
Application No. 08/295,593
While we appreciate that there is a certain appeal to the
examiner’s approach in formulating the rejection, it is our
judgment that the examiner’s rejection is based upon the
impermissible use of hindsight. It is Example 1 of Weigert which
utilizes appellants’ graphite die assembly and this Example only
discloses the use of boron nitride as a lining for the graphite
mold. Example 2 of Weigert, which discloses the use of Al O2 3
paper, does so in the context of a steel pressing can, not a
graphite mold. There is no evidence of record that materials
which are typically used as linings for steel pressing cans are
interchangeable with linings for graphite hot pressing molds.
Consequently, there is no factual support for the examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to substitute a lining
material used in a steel pressing can for a lining of a hot
pressing mold. The examiner does not propose that the Al O2 3
paper of Weigert’s Example 2 be substituted for the boron nitride
lining of Weigert’s Example 1. In our view, the examiner’s
rationale regarding the inertness of Al O to the metal oxide2 3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007