Appeal No. 2002-1752
Application 09/180,464
greater than 400°C/h and less than 55,000°C/h which is rapid
enough to avoid most of the precipitation of the said phases and
slow enough to avoid most of the precipitation of dispersoid
particles.” Claim 27; specification, page 6, last paragraph.
DISCUSSION
The initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness rests on the examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The examiner found,
and appellants concede, that Reiso teaches the method of claim 27
with the exception of performing the final cooling step (i.e.,
cooling following reheating) at the rate specified in claim 27.
Examiner’s Answer, Paper No. 19, mailed February 26, 2002, page
4; Appeal Brief, page 5, second paragraph. According to the
examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time of appellants’ invention to have modified
Reiso’s final cooling step in view of the teachings in the ASM
Handbook to achieve the method of claim 27. See Examiner’s
Answer, page 5, first paragraph. The facts and reasons relied on
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007