Appeal No. 1996-0073
Application 08/278,688
Indeed, there are published results which show that PCD film is
indeed subject to preferential chemical attack at grain boundaries. See S.
Jin et al., Diamond and Related Materials, Vol. 1, p. 949, FIG. 5, which
shows the severe preferential etching of grain boundaries that resulted from
maintaining PCD film for one hour in O at 800EC. Such material would
2
typically be unacceptable for technological purposes.
Appellants urge that "it is established that there exist significant differences in such
properties as workability between monocrystalline diamond and polycrystalline diamond"
(Brief, p. 4). Consequently, appellants challenge the factual basis upon which the
examiner's position finds support. Appellants argue that the examiner has failed to provide
facts or reasons in support of the 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." Brief, p. 5; see also Answer, p. 3.
The examiner does not take issue with appellants' position that differences such as
workability exist between single crystal diamond and polycrystalline diamond film. Rather,
the examiner appears to be of the opinion that these differences do not translate to surface
removal of diamond material as in the claimed process. See Answer, p. 6. Nevertheless,
due to the examiner's failure to provide countervailing evidence which rebuts appellants'
position, we are constrained to reverse the rejection before us. For this reason, the
2
rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over GB '904A is reversed.
2Claims 2-7 are dependent on claim 1.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007