Appeal No. 2002-0895
Application No. 09/402,552
successfully obtaining the advantages indicated supra.
The appellants argue that Boxall does not teach or suggest
forming a spray powder coating of titanium diboride having an
oxygen content of less than 1% by weight. See, e.g., the Brief,
page 3. This argument fails at the outset since it is well
settled that an applicant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
prior art references individually where, as here, the rejection
is based on a combination of prior art references. In re Young,
403 F.2d 754, 757, 159 USPQ 725, 728 (CCPA 1968). It is
important to recognize that the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the prior art references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Keller, 642, F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
In the present case, we determine that the combined
teachings of the prior art references would have suggested
forming a spray powder coating of titanium diboride in an inert
gas chamber virtually free of oxygen (30 ppm oxygen or less) as
indicated supra. This inert gas chamber, as indicated supra, is
said to prevent the formation of undesirable oxides, reduce any
oxide present and minimize changes in chemistry of the coating.
It then follows that the applied prior art references as a whole
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to form
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007