Appeal No. 96-2535
Application 08/028,473
term “crystallite” to refer to the individual grains of the
polycrystalline material. The metes and bounds of claims 13
and 19 can be readily determined by one of ordinary skill.
Therefore, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The examiner has rejected claims 1, 2 and 7 under 35
U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by the report entitled “CVD
Diamond Films For Tribological Application”, hereinafter
referred to as Plano. We are in agreement with the examiner
that Plano discloses throughout the report, that one type of
diamond film coating is commonly referred to as the
“cauliflower” type surface. We further agree with the
examiner that Plano discloses that this surface has a reduced
wear resistant property when compared with other morphologies
having higher centerline average ranges in nanometers. See
Table 5 on page 17 of Plano. However, we do
not agree with the examiner’s further finding of fact that the
cauliflower-type surface can be considered to be an overlayer
with a different morphology than the underlying cauliflower-
type surface. We find that Plano contemplates a tribologic
coating on a substrate with the tribologic coating of the same
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007