Appeal No. 1996-3806
Application 08/183,152
burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation by
pointing out where all of the claim limitations appear in a
single reference. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15
USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1327, 231 USPQ 136, 138-39 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Hale’s cubic
carbide depleted substrate surface layer is made by a
different process than appellant’s surface layer. Hale’s
layer is made by sintering the substrate in a nitrogen
atmosphere to form a cubic carbide depleted layer (col. 3,
line 56 - col. 4, line 1), whereas appellant’s surface layer
is formed by codepositing the tungsten carbide hard phase and
cobalt binder without forming cubic carbides (specification,
page 5, lines 29-34). The examiner has not provided technical
reasoning as to why, regardless of the difference in the
methods of forming these layers, Hale’s cubic carbide phase
depleted layer reasonably appears to necessarily have no cubic
carbides.
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has not carried
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of anticipation
of appellant’s claimed invention over Hale.
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007