Appeal 2007-0687
Application 10/797,422
1 The discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a
2 known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. However, a prima
3 facie case of obviousness may be rebutted where the results of optimizing a
4 variable, which was known to be result effective, are unexpectedly good. In
5 re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 275, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980).
6 In proceedings before the USPTO, claims in an application are given
7 their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In
8 re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1548, 218 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
9 A dictionary may be consulted when construing a claim term, so long
10 as the dictionary is not used to contradict the meaning of a claim term that is
11 unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
12 F.3d 1303, 1324, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
13 An applicant’s description of the chemistry of his process as
14 producing the same product as a process of the prior art is a statement of
15 chemical fact and may be relied on to establish that the processes prima facie
16 produce the same product. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964,
17 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
18 E. ANALYSIS
19 1. Claims 17-25, 27, and 281
20 The Examiner found that Hasz discloses an aluminum oxide (alumina)
21 coating which protects a thermal barrier coating from environmental
22 contaminants. The Examiner found that the thermal barrier coating
23 disclosed in Hasz consists of a ceramic layer, particularly yttria-stabilized
24 zirconia. Answer 4.
1 The Appellants argue claims 17-25 and 27 as a group.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013