Appeal 2007-0170
Application 10/262,510
nanolaminate or at least one micron wide, as required in these
claims, depending on desired flow characteristics in the system.
The Appellants only argue that Pisharody does not teach non-claimed
materials for forming nanolaminate components (Br. 5). Specifically, the
Appellants only contend (id.) that:
The rejection of claim[s] 5 and 11 should be withdrawn because
they depend from claim 1, which should be allowable over the
reference as discussed above.
Thus, for the reasons indicated above, we determine that Pisharody would
have rendered the subject matter of claims 5 and 11 obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
V. CONCLUSION
Having carefully evaluated the claims, Specification and prior art
reference, including the arguments advanced by the Appellants and the
Examiner in support of their respective positions, we determine that the
Examiner’s § § 112, 102(e), and 103(a) rejections are well founded.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims on
appeal for the factual findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer
above.
VI. ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims on appeal under
35 U.S.C. §§ 112, 102(e) and 103(a) is affirmed.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013