Loesch discloses switch-selectable loading means in a transistor testing circuit. The Board The board affirmed the rejection of claims 13, 15, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 for obviousness over Higgins in view of Davidson; of claim 14 for obviousness over Higgins in view of Davidson and Jones; of claims 16, 17, 21, and 22 for obviousness over Higgins in view of Davidson and Weston; and of claim 20 for obviousness over Higgins in view of Davidson and Loesch. Appellant Appellant urges that Higgins does not disclose a sequence of inputs selectable by the operator of the test set and that Higgins' input signal sequence is hard or fixed by program. Appellant also argues that Jones does not show a pair of marker flags on each of two meters and that Jones' purpose is not to mark the positions of logical 1's and O's. It is further contended by appellant that Higgins and Davidson taken together do not disclose "operator-operative" switch means for converting between voltmeter and ammeter, and Weston fails to suggest the desirability of a side-by-side meter arrangement in a testing device like that of Higgins as modified by Davidson's teachings. Finally appellant says there is no reference of record indicating that the use of a socket panel and adapter would be obvious. On the oral argument appellant's counsel stressed that the court must not use hindsight in determining obviousness issues. Opinion [1] Bearing in mind that hindsight must not be used, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time appellant's testing apparatus was devised would, from the references of record, find the subject matter defined in each claim to be obvious. The claims are therefore unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103. As to Higgins' programmed sequence of inputs, it appears to be a more advanced version of the operator-selectable inputs of applicant's invention. Surely one who could make the automatic sequence equipment could make the manually switchable version if desired, and whether such change would be desirable depends solely upon the intended use of the set, not upon some discovery of applicant. Regarding the marker flags, such devices have long been well known and hardly require a reference, and the early Jones patent is more than U.S. patent 2,982,916, issued May 2, 1961. sufficient for this purpose. Applicant's intended use of marking logical 1 and 0 points is plainly within the possible uses of the Jones apparatus and moreover is not recited as a limitation in any appealed claim. [2] The operator-operative switch and circuit means for converting from voltmeter to ammeter operation are not shown by any reference of record, but we can and do take judicial notice that such conversion can be easily accomplished by anyone skilled in the art when desired. It has long been done as an experiment in basic electricity at the undergraduate level. The early side-by-side meter arrangement of Weston is usuable wherever visual comparison is wanted, and anyone wanting such a comparison could use the Weston teaching to achieve it. Again we note that no special discovery or new result is involved in the applicant's use of side-by-side meters. As to the lack of a specific reference disclosing a socket panel and adapter, we believe that this gap can and should be filled by judicial notice. We agree with the examiner and the board that such broadly claimed plug-in means were well known in the art in 1962. In conclusion it appears that each appealed claim defines subject matter which as a whole would have been obvious in view of the prior art of record. The decision of the board is affirmed. ALMOND, J., concurs in the result. 418 F.2d 932; 164 USPQ 18 IN RE HOWARD B. CUMMINGS AND RALPH GIBSON (No. 8124) PATENTS PARTICULAR PATENTS-CERAMIC ARTICLES Process for the Manufacture of Ceramic Articles, and Product Derived From Such Process, claims 5, 8, 13, 14, 18 to 27, and 31 to 38 of application allowed; claims 12, 15 to 17, and 39 refused. United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, December 11, [Modified] 1969 Appeal from Patent Office, Serial No. 150,724 Henry L. Burkitt, attorney of record, for appellants. Joseph Schimmel for the Commissioner of Patents. J. F. Nakamura, of counsel. [Oral argument October 8, 1969 by Mr. Burkitt and Mr. Nakamura] Before RICH, ALMOND, BALDWIN, LANE, Associate Judges, and GANEY, Judge, sitting by designation. RICH, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This appeal is from the decision of the Patent Office Board of Appeals1 affirming the rejection of claims 5, 8, 12-27, and 31-39 of application serial No. 150,724, entitled "Process for the Manufacture of Ceramic Articles, and Product Derived From Such Process." Twelve claims have been allowed. The invention pertains to the manufacture of ceramic articles such as china, refractory bodies, wall tile, and sanitary ware. The well established method of manufacturing these articles begins with the mixing in water of a plurality of particulate materials, e.g., clay, talc, and aluminum oxide, to form a viscous slurry referred to in the art as a "slip." This slip is formed into a shape approximating that of the final article to be produced by "casting" the slip in a porous mold. After sufficient water has been absorbed by the walls of the mold to render the casting self-supporting, it is removed from the mold, allowed to dry further, and finally fired or sintered to fix the shape as that of the article desired. Appellants have discovered that a number of beneficial results can be achieved if all the ingredients used to prepare the slip are first processed in a particular manner. Specifically, appellants' procedure involves the steps of (1) combining all the raw ingredients in a liquid such as water to form a viscous mixture, (2) extruding this mixture into a form resembling thick spaghetti or noodles, (3) drying and then heating the extrusions to a temperature approximating that at which cast ceramic articles having the same composition would normally be sintered, e.g., 2150° to 2900° F., and (4) after cooling, reducing the extrusions to a particle size suitable for preparing a viscous mixture used for casting. Step 3, which appellants call a "reacting" step, drives off water of crystallization and carbonaceous and other oxidizable materials present in the raw ingredients and also effects certain chemical and physical changes which would otherwise not occur until the firing or sintering of the casting. Some of the benefits which derive from the use of appellants' process are that warping, excessive shrinkage and other changes which otherwise occur in a casting during firing or sintering are avoided, and that products of improved strength and uniformity in structural and electrical properties are obtained. There is one preferred embodiment of appellants' invention which also requires mention. Namely, appellants have found it desirable in step 4 to limit their reacted material to a particle size not greater than 1 Bailey and Brewrink, Examiners-in-Chief, and Bendett, Acting Examiner-in-Chief, opinion by Brewrink. 2 Appellants refer to viscous mixtures of particles processed according to their invention as "ceramic suspensions" to distinguish them from other slips. 374-293-71- -8 44 microns and to limit the amount of particles finer than one micron to from 9.5% to 35% by weight. Appellants' specification indicates that by so limiting the particle sizes, products of particularly high densities and uniformity of chemical and physical properties are obtained and the clogging of porous molds by ultra-fine particles is avoided. Each of the appealed claims is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over one or more of the following references: Casselman is relied on for a disclosure of the use of porous molds for casting ceramic articles while Austin is relied on for a disclosure of the use, for the same purpose, of nonabsorbent molds having an absorbent internal core. Bennett, the reference of principal importance here, discloses a method of preparing casting slips containing a flaky, magnesia-containing mineral such as talc or pyrophyllite. In one embodiment, the magnesia-containing material is calcined and ground so that it does not assume the undesirable flaky form and is then mixed in water with clay and other particulate materials to form a slip. More pertinent here is a second embodiment described in Bennett as follows (our emphasis): Instead of simply calcining the magnesia-containing material, a reinforcing agent of even greater effectiveness may be produced by mixing finely ground talc with a matrix material, adding but a very small percentage of a binder (for example, 5% of clay or a small quantity of sodium alginate, gum tragacanth, goulac or lignon extract, etc.), extruding the mixture through an auger so as to compact the same and form bodies or masses, and then burning the bodies or masses to vitrifying or semi-vitrifying temperatures. The mass can be extruded in the form of a rod and then broken up into pieces of desired size before burning the same. As an illustration, a reinforcing agent can be made by intimately mixing 45% of sepiolite or tale with 50% of ground glass and 5% of clay. After intimately mixing and extruding the mass through a die, the extruded material is broken up into pieces ranging from 1 to 4 inches in diameter, and then burned to cone 02 or cone 03.[3] At this temperature the mass will be found to have been rendered substantially vitreous. These masses are then ground to a suitable state of division. The scope of the expression "matrix material” is stated by Bennett as follows: By the term "matrix material" as used herein, reference is made to prefused amorphous, relatively low melting point substances or frits such as window glass a The examiner has indicated that temperatures corresponding to cone 02 and cone 03 are 2098 and 2068° F., respectively. This has not been disputed by appellants. cullet, bottle glass, soda lime glass, or other previously fused and prepared frits, or highly alkaline natural materials such as sodalite, lepidolite, phonolite, nephelite, syenite, etc., volcanic glasses such as rhyolite and obsidian, colemanite, and other natural materials preferably containing a high proportion of alkalies. In the manufacture of hotel china, Bennett suggests combining on a weight basis, 40% of the substantially vitrified, ground reinforcing agent described above, 30% of clay, 20% of ground glass or equivalent matrix material and 10% of raw talc or other magnesia-containing material. Bennett also suggests several other formulations, each of which calls for from 0 to 60% of a reinforcing agent and from 40 to 100% of other particulate materials. Bickford relates to a method of casting non-plastic ceramic materials such as alumina and calcined substances such as burned clays. This method involves wet milling the nonplastic ceramic material until 95% of it is less than 44 microns in size, drying the resulting slip, repowdering the material, and mixing it with water to form a slip for casting in a porous mold. Bickford cautions against excessively long wet milling and indicates that an abundance of ultra fine particles can cause clogging of porous molds. The board acknowledged that appellants have disclosed a patentable invention, saying: We * * are convinced that appellants have presented a novel and useful contribution over the applied references. The reacting of all ingredients at a higher temperature than the final sintering appears to reasonably assure against unpredicted warping and changes in the article in the firing step. It further appears reasonable that the advantages would follow as to uniformity in the structural and electrical properties of the product. Within the Bennett patent, we do not find any suggestion of "reacting" all the ingredients that are to be used in molding an article and thus no appreciation or solution of appellants' argued and disclosed contribution to the production of stable and uniform articles. While Bickford is more expressive of treating all of the ingredients, within our understanding of this reference the "reacting" step is not approached with the intent of more than a drying, or at most calcining objective. The board felt, however, that the appealed claims do not proscribe the inclusion of some "unreacted" ingredients in the final ceramic article. Being of that view and apparently of the view that Bennett's disclosure of the preparation of his "reinforcing agent" would make it obvious to react anything short of all the ingredients used in a ceramic article, the board held that the appealed claims do not distinguish over the references. Thus, although the rejection is based on § 103 obviousness, the ultimate issue here primarily involves only claim interpretation. The appealed claims were treated below in three groups: (1) 5 and 8; (2) 12-27 and 39; and (3) 31–38. In reproducing representative claims from each group hereinafter, claim language which is at the heart of |