Appeal No. 2003-1796 Page 5
Application No. 09/513,563
have modified Dunbar and Rudoi in the manner set forth by the examiner in the rejection
before us in this appeal, such would not result in the claimed invention since such would
not result in a disk comprised of a fiber induced composite ceramic material comprising
alumina and toughened metallic oxide composite. Thus, the examiner has not
established the obviousness of the subject matter of claims 5 to 7 and 26 to 28.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 5 to 7 and 26 to 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claim 16
We will not sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not suggest a disk having a
radius, a concentric dome coextensive with a portion of the radius, and a substantially
flat surface circumferentially surrounding the dome. We agree. It is our determination
that even if it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to have modified Dunbar and Rudoi in the manner set forth by the
examiner in the rejection before us in this appeal, such would not result in the claimed
invention since such would not result in a disk having a substantially flat (i.e., planar)
surface circumferentially surrounding the dome. Thus, the examiner has not established
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007