Appeal 2007-0950
Application 11/099,264
to claim 17, each of Strutt and Gambino would have reasonably suggested to
one of ordinary skill in this art that the particle size of powders and of
nanoparticles in suspension for application via thermal spray gun is a result
effective variable which can be adjusted within the range taught. See, e.g.,
In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (“[W]here
the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not
inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation.”).
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Strutt and Peterson and further with Gambino with
Appellants’ countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness
and conclude that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims
1 through 20 would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
15
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013