Appeal No. 2007-1530
Application 10/095,112
“aluminum alloy” rather than to the properties of pure aluminum, the only material
that is specifically identified in the Specification for making the connector housing
of the Admitted Prior Art. Specification 1:24 to 2:3.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 2 is affirmed.
We are alternatively affirming the rejection based on an “obvious to try”
rationale in light of KSR’s holding that such a rationale can form the basis for a
holding of obviousness:
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and
there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person
of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within
his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is
likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common
sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try
might show that it was obvious under §103.
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. The facts in support of this rationale
are the same as those given above. Based on those facts, we hold that it would
have been prima facie obvious for an artisan desirous of replacing the pure
aluminum in the connector housing of the Admitted Prior Art with Pyzik’s Al—
B—C composite material to try different volume percentages of the ceramic
material, including percentages at and less than 60 percent, in order to determine
which volume percentages yield a composite material that is suitable for making an
electrically conductive housing. This prima facie case for obviousness, like the
Examiner’s prima facie case, has not been rebutted by evidence of unexpected
results.
28
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013