Appeal No. 2005-2304
Application No. 10/127,555
and 2. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1566 n.2, 37 USPQ2d 1127,
1129 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1995); 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
Ryoji discloses a method for making a television cathode ray
tube wherein a shadow mask is heated to about 600°C to blacken it
and then is cooled rapidly at $1000°C/hr (16.7°C/min) to reduce
its thermal expansion coefficient (pages 1-2). The highest
exemplified cooling rate is 2000°C/hr (33.3°C/min) (page 5,
table 1).
The appellants argue that the upper limit of Ryoji’s cooling
rate range should be the highest exemplified rate, which is
2000°C/hr (reply brief, page 4). This argument is not well taken
because the reference is not limited to its examples. See In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794 n.1, 215 USPQ 569, 570 n.1 (CCPA
1982); In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651, 176 USPQ 196, 198 (CCPA
1972).
The appellants argue that Ryoji would not have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, a cooling rate
much higher than the highest disclosed rate, such as a rate
substantially higher than 50°C/min (claim 1) or at least
500°C/min (claim 2) (brief, pages 3-4; reply brief, pages 2-3).
Ryoji in no way limits the cooling rate. Hence, Ryoji’s
disclosure that the suitable rates are $1000°C/hr (page 1) would
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007