Appeal No. 95-2255
Application No. 07/962,035
examiner's basic position that it would have been obvious to
practice Forestek's operation using parameters such as
velocity and incident angle (about which patentee is silent)
that correspond to those defined by appealed claim 10.
In short, the record before us does not support a
conclusion that the blasting fluid stream operation of
Forestek would cause deposition of a layer of the material of
the particles as required by appealed claim 10 or that the
parameters necessary to achieve the compaction goal of this
operation would correspond to those for achieving the
deposition goal of the method defined by the claims on appeal.
It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner's § 103
rejection of claims 3, 10 and 11 as being unpatentable over
Forestek.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007