Appeal No. 1996-0073
Application 08/278,688
maintained at a temperature in the range of 600-1100EC for an effective time to remove
the quantity of diamond material.
According to the examiner (Answer, p. 3):
GB '904A discloses a method of processing diamonds by contacting
diamond and a metal template at a temperature of 600-1800EC (p.1 lines
44-47[, 48-61 and 91-95]) which results in the removal of material (p.1 lines
55-56 and 73-78). In one embodiment, the template can be iron or nickel (p.
1 lines 63-64 [(sic, lines 62-63)]). However, GB '904A fails to teach a
polycrystalline film.
See also p. 1, lines 104-108 (metal applied to diamond surface in the form of a paste or by
sputtering to effect removal of diamond material).
The examiner maintains (Answer, p. 3):
It is well known in the vapor deposition art that diamond is generic to
polycrystalline diamond or monocrystalline diamond. One skilled in the art
would know that monocrystalline diamond has similar properties to that of
polycrystalline diamond. It is the examiner's position that one of ordinary skill
in the art would reasonably expect that the removal of monocrystalline
diamond in the GB patent [application] would work for a polycrystalline
diamond. Hence, it is the examiner's position that it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to have utilized polycrystalline diamond because there would have
been an expectation that the deposition process would have been fully
successful.
Based on the record before us, we agree that the examiner has set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness. However, in rebuttal, appellants argue that (Brief, p. 3):
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007