Appeal No. 98-1529 Page 3
Application No. 08/446,375
Claims 6-11 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which the appellants regard as the invention.
Claims 6, 8 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Yamaguchi.
Claims 7, 9, 10 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi in view of Takahashi.
The rejections are explained in the Examiner's Answer.
The viewpoints of the appellants are set forth in the
Brief.
OPINION
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
Claim 17 adds to claim 6 the requirement that the treating
step “further coats said surface with a porous layer.” In the
examiner’s view, this is “inconsistent with a disclosed
embodiment as illustrated in Fig.1" where, in the examiner’s
opinion, “the treated surface (top surface) is not coated with
a porous layer.” The examiner has apparently misunderstood the
description of the preferred embodiment of the invention. We
agree with the appellants that the disputed feature is
disclosed on page 7 of the specification. From our
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007