Appeal No. 96-2535
Application 08/028,473
morphology throughout. Therefore, we are in agreement with
the appellant that there is no suggestion in either Plano or
the Obata references of using a combination of diamond film
layers of different morphologies. As the appellant points
out, morphology of the cauliflower surface layer disclosed in
Plano is the same morphology as the underlying diamond layer.
Both layers are of the same cauliflower morphology. As the
appellant succinctly states, it is important to note that the
cauliflower-like features are not only visible at the surface
but are present also in the underlying bulk of this particular
reduced wear resistance morphology diamond film. (Appeal
Brief, page 12). For this reason, it is our conclusion that
Plano cannot be said to have two discrete diamond layers of
different morphology as required by claim 1. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) cannot be sustained.
Turning to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and
considering claims 1 through 13 first, we note that Obata also
does not disclose the polycrystalline diamond wear surface
having two distinct morphologies. Thus, Obata does not in any
way overcome the shortcomings of Plano which we have
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007