Appeal 2007-1529
Application 10/385,722
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. Teleflex,
Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007) quoting In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See
DyStar Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006)(“The motivation
need not be found in the references sought to be combined, but may be
found in any number of sources, including common knowledge, the prior art
as a whole, or the nature of the problem itself.”). The analysis supporting
obviousness, however, should be made explicit and should “identify a reason
that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to
combine the elements” in the manner claimed. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741,
82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As for the argued grain size, we agree with the Examiner that EP ‘710
teaches and suggests the use of an alloy material with crystal grain sizes less
than 300 µm and with finer sizes being advantageous in improving the
forgeability properties of the alloy material (EP ‘710, ¶ 0047 and ¶ 0049).
EP ‘710 discloses or suggests that employing smaller mean grain sizes,
including sizes substantially less than 100 µm, including values within the
here-claimed range of crystal grain sizes, would be attended by an improved
critical upsetting rate, which is a desired property for the alloy material
during forging (EP ‘ 710, Fig. 9, ¶ 0106 and ¶ 0107). EP ‘710 is concerned
with forming forged parts, such as for an automobile engine (EP ‘710,
¶ 0051). Moreover, EP ‘901 discloses that crystal grain sizes less than 30
µm are particularly useful in enhancing elongation properties of the alloy
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013