Appeal No. 1999-2131 Page 11
Application No. 08/971,504
one having ordinary skill in the art would have
found that providing chromium cobalt and carbide
alloys as taught by Metals Handbook [Du Mond] in
the drill bit assembly of Drake, would have been
obvious in view of the teaching of Metals
Handbook [Du Mond] of providing certain chromium
cobalt and carbide alloys in order to provide
certain desirable properties (final rejection,
page 2).
We can only speculate as to what the "certain desirable
properties" are and why they are desirable since the examiner
provides no explanation. The examiner also argues that Du
Mond's Stellite 6B is exactly the same Stellite 6B that
applicants employ and which therefore necessarily has the same
properties (answer, page 4). However, we fail to see how this
helps to explain what the difference(s) is between Drake's
disclosure and the claims on appeal, or is suggestive of
combining Du Mond with Drake.
It is our view that the examiner has failed to provide an
adequate explanation of the difference between the appellants'
claims 1-24, 26, 27, 41-48, 53, 54, 59-64, 69 and 70 and the
prior art. Without a clear understanding of what the examiner
considers to be the difference, or differences, between Drake
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007