Ex parte LITTECKE et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1996-1699                                                        
          Application No. 08/077,681                                                  




               The appellants’ invention relates to a method of removing              
          the binder phase from the surface of a hard material body                   
          containing hard constituents in a binder phase (claims 1                    
          through 4) and the product produced by the method (claim 5).                
          Claims 1 and 5 are illustrative of the subject matter on                    
          appeal and are reproduced below:                                            
               1. A method of removing the binder phase from the surface              
               of a hard material body containing hard constituents in a              
               binder phase based on cobalt and/or nickel, said body                  
               having a binder phase enriched surface zone comprising                 
               blasting the surface zone using particles having a size                
               of 400 to 1500 mesh.                                                   
               5. The product of the method of claim 1.                               
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
               Reed                     3,382,159                May  07,             
          1968                                                                        
               Oliver              4,272,612                Jun. 09, 1981             
               Additionally, the examiner relies on the admitted prior                
          art (APA) described on pages 1 and 2 of the appellants’                     
          specification.                                                              
               Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103                
          as being unpatentable over the APA in view of Oliver and Reed.              

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007