Appeal No. 2003-0208 Page 13
Application No. 08/578,996
metallic chromium to be in an intercrystal grain boundary of the CrN and Cr2N in the
amount claimed (i.e., more than 0.5 and not more than 15.0 weight percent).
In any event, the declaration of Motonubu Onoda establishes unexpected results
for the claimed subject matter, and in our view, is sufficient to rebut any case that the
claimed subject matter was prima facie obvious from the combined teachings of the
applied prior art. That is, when we weigh the examiner's evidence of obviousness and
the declaration of Motonubu Onoda, we conclude that the subject matter of claim 3
would not have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 3
and claims 6, 8 and 10 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.8
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3, 6, 8 and 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 3, 6, 8 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is reversed; and the
8 We have also reviewed the reference to Ishida additionally applied in the rejection of claim 10
but find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiencies of Takiguchi and Komuro discussed above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007