Appeal No. 95-1195
Application No. 08/102,674
machining, one will not only substantially eliminate the
distortion which ordinarily results in the final heat
treatment subsequent to coating, but one can also eliminate or
substantially reduce the need for a critical or final re-
machining step" (page 4 of specification).
Appealed claims 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Lancsek. The appealed claims
also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
being based upon an original specification that fails to
provide descriptive support for the claimed subject matter.
In addition, the appealed claims stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite.
We have carefully considered the opposing arguments
presented by appellant and the examiner. As a result, we find
that the prior art applied by the examiner fails to establish
a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed subject
matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's § 103
rejection. In addition, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first and second paragraphs.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of the
appealed claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007