Appeal 2007-0501
Application 10/747,956
application by spraying as does Popoola, the brazing effected in substantially
the same range of temperatures.
Thus, on this record, we determine that one of ordinary skill in this art
would have found in the combined teachings of Seseke-Koyro ‘221, Lauzon,
and Popoola and of Seseke-Koyro ‘221, Lauzon, and Shimajiri the
motivation to combine the references, and thence to employ potassium
fluorozincate in the wet and dry applications of fluoride salts taught in the
references in the gain size ranges disclosed by Popoola and Shimajiri in the
reasonable expectation of successful performance in the brazing methods
taught in the references. Therefore, we are of the opinion that one of
ordinary skill in this art routinely following the combined teachings of the
references as applied would have reasonably arrived at the claimed
potassium fluorozincate encompassed by claims 8 and 10 through 12
without recourse to Appellants’ Specification. See, e.g., In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 985-88, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1334-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)(“The test for
obviousness is not whether . . . the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of
ordinary skill in the art.”).
We recognize that the method of preparing the flux preparation which
includes a pulverizing step taught in the applied prior art as relied on by the
Examiner is not the method specified in any of claims 8, 11 and 12 as
Appellants contend. As the Examiner contends, the claims are product-by-
process claims with only the reagents and the order of combining the same
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013