Appeal No. 2007-1530
Application 10/095,112
ISSUE 3: WOULD THE ARTISAN HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE
VOLUME CONTENT OF THE HOLLOW CERAMICS GRAINS
RELATIVE TO THE TOTAL VOLUME OF THE CONNECTOR
HOUSING CAN HAVE A VALUE IN THE RANGE OF 30 TO
60 VOLUME PERCENT, AS RECITED IN CLAIM 2?
Claim 2 specifies that “the volume content of the hollow ceramics grains
relative to the total volume of the connector housing is 30% to 60%.” Pyzik’s
ceramic-metal composite material
preferably has from about 4 to about 30 volume %, more preferably,
from about 4 to about 15 volume %, residual free metal. Desirably,
less than about 50% of the free metal is present in the ceramic-ceramic
interfaces, and, more desirably, most of the free metal is present only
in the interstices.
Col. 6, ll. 44-55. We agree with the Examiner and Appellants that this passage
means the ceramic material preferably has a value from about 70 to about 96
volume percent, and more preferably has a value from about 85 to 96 volume
percent. Neither of these ranges overlaps or includes the claimed range of 30 to 60
volume percent for the ceramic material.
The Examiner’s position is that
[i]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to have the volume content of the
hollow ceramics grains relative to the total volume of the connector
housing [be] 30% to 60%, since it has been held that discovering an
optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill
in the art. In re Boesch, 617[] F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA
1980).
Answer 4. For the following reasons, the Examiner was correct to hold that the
subject matter of claim 2 would have been obvious over Pyzik.
24
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013