Appeal No. 96-1931
Application 07/995,635
of claim 10. Note In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ
143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
In summary, the rejection of claims 2, 6 and 10 under 35
U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over Sulcs and common knowledge in
the art is sustained with respect to claim 10 but is not sus-
tained with respect to claims 2 and 6.
III. The rejection of claims 4, 7
and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as
unpatentable over Sulcs and Acommon
knowledge in the art@ in view of
Coaton and Koury.
Claims 4 and 7 depend respectively from claims 2 and 6.
As we just noted, the invention of claims 2 and 6 is not sug-
gested by the teachings of Sulcs and common knowledge in the art.
The examiner relies on Coaton and Koury to teach the use of
oxide coatings made from yttria, zirconia or a combination
thereof.
The examiner also relies on arguments previously made as to why
it would have been obvious to use oxide coatings on both the
interior surface of the tube and the exterior surface of the tube
[answer, pages 6-7]. Appellants argue that there is no basis to
combine the teachings of Coaton and Koury with Sulcs because the
coatings in Coaton and Koury have nothing to do with sodium
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007