Appeal No. 1995-4981
Application No. 08/248,583
silicon, aluminum, titanium, zirconium, hafnium,
niobium, or tantalum.
To remedy this deficiency of Borom, the examiner relies on
Rousseau to demonstrate that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a nitride of
aluminum, hafnium or zirconium for boron nitride in the method
described in Borom. See the Answer, pages 4 and 5.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner’s findings
regarding the content of Borom. See the Brief in its
entirety. Appellants, however, dispute that Rousseau
provides a suggestion to deposit a nitride of aluminum,
hafnium or zirconium, in lieu of boron nitride, on the fibers
during the method described in Borom. See the Brief, pages 5-
7.
The dispositive question is, therefore, whether it would
have been obvious to deposit the nitride of aluminum,
zirconium, or hafnium, in lieu of boron nitride, on the fibers
of the fiber reinforced composite described in Borom. We
answer this question in the negative.
As indicated by appellants at page 3 of the Brief, Borom
employs a boron nitride coating on the fibers to prevent or
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007