Appeal No. 98-1529 Page 6
Application No. 08/446,375
micro holes, they extend completely through the component,
rather than extending less than the thickness thereof, as
required by claim 6. We are not persuaded otherwise by the
examiner’s arguments, which in our view take the language of
Yamaguchi’s claim 1 out of context.
This rejection of independent claim 6 and dependent claims
8 and 11 is not sustained.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
This rejection encompasses dependent claims 7, 9, 10 and
17, which add to claim 6 the manner in which the micro holes
are formed and, in the case of claim 17, that the treating step
includes coating the surface with a porous layer. Even
considering Yamaguchi in the light of 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is 3
our opinion that the deficiencies pointed out above in the
discussion of the Section 102 rejection still are present. The
added teachings found in Takahashi, which was cited by the
examiner for its teachings of specific ways in which to form
micro holes, fail to alleviate the basic problems of the
3The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007