Appeal No. 1996-3806
Application 08/183,152
establish a prima facie case of anticipation with respect to
the rejection of claims 6, 9 and 14 over Sastri, and
obviousness with respect to the rejection of claims 7 and 8
over that reference.
The examiner, however, has not explained why each element
of rejected claims 6, 9 and 14 are disclosed by Sastri, or why
each of the elements of claims 7 and 8 would have been fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art by Sastri.
Regarding the point raised by appellant, i.e., that the prior
art crystalline cobalt is not a binder, the examiner has
provided no evidence or technical reasoning which shows that
the prior art coarse grained, face-centered-cubic, cobalt-
based continuous phase in Sastri is a binder for the randomly
dispersed second phase of particles. The examiner has merely
stated that she concludes that this is the case (answer, page
4), and that mere conclusion is not sufficient for
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation or
obviousness.
DECISION
-9-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007