Appeal No. 96-1651
Application 07/987,186
With the above in mind, we now turn to the examiner’s
prior art rejections.
The anticipation rejection based upon Oda
We reverse this rejection of appellants’ claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
As earlier pointed out, independent claim 13 is
addressed to a ceramic-metal composite rotor.
The examiner indicates that the rejection is based upon
Figure 6 of Oda, not Figure 5 as referred to by appellants (main
answer, page 12).
Simply stated, claim 13 is not anticipated by the
showing in Figure 6 of Oda. This figure relates to an engine
piston configuration, not a rotor, as claimed. Further, two
mechanical joining structures are relied upon in the piston of
Figure 5, not the specific metallurgical joining means and the
distinct mechanical joining means of claim 13. As to the ceramic
understood as imposing further structural limitations, i.e., a
heated intermediate layer joining structure of Ni (claim 18) and
a press fit joining structure (claim 20). See In re Thorpe,
777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007