Appeal No. 94-3447
Application 07/864,725
Pinneo 0 286 310 Dec. 10, 1988
(European patent application)
Appellants submit at page 2 of the principal Brief that
claims 1, 2, 6, 11 and 14 should receive separate considerations
of patentability. Accordingly, appealed claims 1, 3-5 and 7-10
stand or fall together, as do claims 11-13 and 15-18.
Appealed claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pinneo in view of Holcombe.
Pinneo, like appellants, discloses a process for coating a
substrate with diamond comprising maintaining the substrate in a
fluidized bed while depositing a coating of diamond upon the
substrate by chemical vapor deposition of a carbon-containing
precursor gas mixture. Pinneo does not disclose that the
fluidized bed comprises the substrate to be coated with diamond
within a bed of particles. As appreciated by the examiner,
Pinneo discloses only that the fluidized bed comprises the
substrate to be coated. However, as noted by the examiner,
appellants’ claim 3 limitation that the substrate is comprised of
the same material as the bed particles results in claim 1
encompassing processes wherein the substrate to be coated and the
bed particles are made of the same material. Such interpretation
of claim 1 is in accord with the specification disclosure that
“[t]he substrate to be coated by the chemical vapor deposition in
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007