Appeal No. 1996-3806
Application 08/183,152
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 1-5, 11-13
and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Hale; claims 6, 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated
by Sastri; and claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Sastri.1
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellant and the examiner and agree with
appellant that the aforementioned rejections are not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse these rejections.
Rejection over Hale
Hale discloses a cobalt cemented carbide substrate which
is to be coated to make a cutting tool insert (col. 2, lines
1Rejections which were made in the final rejection over
U.S. 4,150,195 to Tobioka and U.S. 4,705,124 to Abrahamson are
not included in the examiner’s answer, and no explanation for
this omission is given in the advisory action (paper no. 8) or
in the examiner’s answer. These rejections appear to have
been withdrawn by the examiner, and are so treated in this
appeal.
-3-3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007