Appeal No. 2000-0920
Application No. 08/829,034
it does not specify, for example, any particular ceramic starting
material, ceramic material particle size, metal, or infiltration
temperature.
Given the breadth of claim 1 and the disclosure of Holt that
the cermet thereof comprises a porous ceramic skeleton having
interconnected pores infiltrated with molten metal, we think the
examiner has a reasonable basis for concluding that the cermet of
Holt is either identical with or only slightly different than
cermets encompassed by claim 1. Under such circumstances, a
rejection based alternatively on either Section 102 or Section
103 of the statute, as the examiner has done here, is fair and
acceptable. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688
(CCPA 1972). Appellant’s summary argument on pages 5-6 of the
brief and page 3 of the supplemental brief to the effect that
Holt fails to teach the claimed cermet does not convince us that
the examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. We therefore will
sustain the standing rejection of claim 1 as being anticipated by
Holt or, in the alternative, as being unpatentable over Holt.
Concerning claims 2-9 and 35-37, appellant has not presented
arguments directed with any reasonable degree of specificity to
these claims apart from claim 1. Therefore, the standing
rejection of these claims as being anticipated by Holt, or in the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007