Appeal No. 2006-2154 Page 9
Application No. 10/786,998
While the passage clearly suggests that it is preferable to use different
materials for the valve seat and the slide plate to eliminate adhesion, we find that
Berchem ‘004 does not teach away from using the same material for both the valve
seat and the slide plate. Specifically, although a person seeking to improve the art
of shut-off valves, upon learning from Berchem ‘004 that valves made of all one
material in certain instances are inferior to valve seats and shut-off elements made
of different materials, might well be led to use different materials for improved
valves, Berchem ‘004 also teaches that it was known in the prior art to use the
same engineering ceramics for both parts in shut-off and control valves (Berchem,
col. 1, lines 41-58). As such, the teaching of Berchem ‘004 that it is preferable to
use different materials is not a teaching away. See Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553, 31
USPQ2d at 1132 (“A known or obvious composition does not become patentable
simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product
for the same use.”)
Further, Berchem ‘004 teaches that the problem of adhesion is dependent
upon the flowable medium passing through the valve (Berchem ‘004, col. 1, lines
54-56). The appellant has presented no evidence that adhesion was even a concern
in the gas-tight fitting of the present invention, and thus has made no showing that
Berchem ‘004 suggests that the use of the same material for the valve seat and slide
plate of the disc slide valve is unlikely to have been productive for the result
sought by the appellant. As such, we find that the statement in Berchem ‘004 to
use separate materials for the valve element and valve seat to prevent adhesion
would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art away from using the teaching in
Berchem ‘004 to replace the silicon dioxide ball valve of Berchem ‘427 with a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007