Appeal No. 2005-1438
Application No. 10/027,433
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091
(Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). This test requires us to take into account not
only the specific teachings of the prior art references but also
any inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
With the above obviousness test in mind, we turn to the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 5, 8 and 13 through
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
teachings of Oku and Deith. We note that according to the
appellants (Brief, page 4):
Deith teaches applying a silica-based glaze to a
ceramic substrate by a sol-gel method, as an
alternative to a conventional, high temperature firing
glaze, wherein the glaze is formed by providing a sol-
gel precursor formulation comprising a host precursor
component, allowing the formulation to form a sol-gel,
applying the sol-gel to the substrate and heating at
termperatures of about 500oC to form a finished coating
on the substrate (page 3, lines 12-34; Example).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007