Appeal No. 95-2799
Application No. 07/799,806
acknowledged that the additional layer may comprise the same
composition as the protective layer (see claim 9). In our
view, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to apply an additional protective
layer to the article of JP '948 for the purpose of providing
additional protection against corrosion and abrasion.
We note that appellants base no argument upon objective
evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, with
respect to the § 103 rejection.
We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1-
9 under § 102 over Goodman. Simply put, we find no
description in Goodman of the claimed protective layer
comprising nitrides and oxynitrides of silicon and silicon
alloys, and the examiner has pointed to no disclosure of such
in the reference. The discussion of a transition layer in the
paragraph bridging columns 6 and 7 of Goodman does not provide
a description of the claimed protective layer.
As a final point, appellants' counsel at oral hearing
withdrew the appeal of claim 4 as being redundant regarding
the composition of the protective layer.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007