Appeal No. 95-5146
Application 08/152,557
Brock et al. (Brock), “Wear-Resistant Coating,” IBM Technical
Disclosure Bulletin, Vol. 11, No. 10, March 1969.
Claims 20-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Soda in view of
Kimura with respect to claims 20 and 22-26, and adds Brock with
respect to claims 21 and 27. A rejection of the claims under the
second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 has been withdrawn by the
examiner [answer, page 7].
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner's
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner's answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the collective evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007