Ex parte ANTHONY et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 95-2327                                                          
          Application 08/119,448                                                      


          Claim 24 is illustrative of the appealed claims and reads as                
          follows:                                                                    

               24.  A method of producing a diamond article comprising:               
                    depositing a diamond layer by chemical vapor deposition           
          on a surface of a thermally stable substrate consisting of a tube           
          open at both ends and having an inner surface and an outer                  
          surface, said outer surface having a shape substantially the same           
          as that of the desired interior of said diamond article, while              
          supporting said substrate to prevent distortion thereof; and                
               submerging said substrate and diamond layer in a vertical              
          position in an etching bath and ultrasonically agitating said               
          etching bath to remove said substrate by etching of the inner               
          surface thereof.                                                            

               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          

          Jansen et al. (Jansen)        4,925,701      May 15, 1990                   
          Ohata (Japanese Kokai)        1-138110      May 31, 1989                    

               Since appellants' brief does not contain a statement that              
          the claims do not stand or fall together, the claims do stand or            
          fall together.  37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).  Accordingly, we will limit           
          our consideration to claim 24.                                              
               Claims 24-27 and 30 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103 as               
          unpatentable over Ohata alone or when taken in view of Jansen.              
          Claims 24-27 and 30 stand further rejected under 35 USC § 103 as            
          unpatentable over Jansen.  We reverse.                                      

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007