Appeal No. 96-2535
Application 08/028,473
the cauliflower-like material was not even tested
for its wear characteristics, thereby leading those
of ordinary skill in the art away from considering
it for wear applications and teaching away from
Applicant’s invention. (Appellant’s Brief, page 16-
17).
We regard this as a clear admission that the subject matter of
claim 14, which does not require two different morphological
layers, would have been obvious just as posited by the
appellant in the Brief. All claim 14 requires is a first
layer of reduced wear characteristic. The underlying portion
below this layer could also have the reduced wear
characteristic. Claim 20 is also of this same scope.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is affirmed. With regard to claims 15 through 19, claim
15 requires both an underlayer and overlayer and one of
ordinary skill would not have found this claimed subject
matter to be obvious from Plano and Obata. Therefore, the
rejection of claims 15 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
Pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b), this Board enters the
following rejection.
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007