Appeal No. 1997-2023
Application No. 08/197,497
the additive element on said substrate at the coating
temperature for a time to form thereon an aluminide
diffusion coating including said additive element.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
support for the rejections:
Sarin et al. (Sarin ‘384) 4,701,384 Oct. 20, 1987
Sarin et al. (Sarin ‘574) 4,890,574 Jan. 2, 1990
Punola et al. (Punola) 5,264,245 Nov. 23, 1993
Claims 1-3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Sarin ‘384 (Answer, page 3). Claims 4-12 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sarin ‘384 in
view of Sarin ‘574 (Answer, page 4). Claims 13-19 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Sarin ‘384 in view of
Sarin ‘574 further in view of Punola (Answer, page 7). We
reverse all of the examiner’s rejections for reasons which
follow.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 102(b)
“Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, every limitation of a claim must
identically appear in a single prior art reference for it to
anticipate the claim. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832, 15 USPQ2d
1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d
1454, 1457, 43 USPQ2d 1030, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 1 on
appeal recites “[a] method of forming by chemical vapor
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007