Appeal No. 1996-1699
Application No. 08/077,681
Like appellants, absent the disclosure of the present
application, we do not consider that one of ordinary skill in
the
art would have been motivated to modify the method of removing
binder phase from the surface of a cemented carbide insert of
the APA in the manner required to arrive at the method defined
in appellants’ claim 1 based on the teachings of Reed and
Oliver.
For the above reasons, the examiner’s rejection of claim
1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will not be sustained.
Claims 2 through 4 are dependent on claim 1 and contain
all of the limitations of that claim. Therefore, we will also
not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 2
through 4.
The issue presented by the examiner’s rejection of
product-by-process claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the APA in view Oliver and Reed is an
entirely different matter. The examiner bears a lesser burden
of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007