Appeal No. 1998-1869
Application 08/688,423
intermediate and bottom layers of the multilayer coating
[brief, pages 5-6; reply brief, page 2]. The examiner
responds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of claims
1 and 2 is met by Watanabe’s disclosure [answer, page 6].
Although the examiner is correct to give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation in making a prior art
rejection, the examiner does not explain how his
interpretation is fully met by the disclosure of Watanabe.
The examiner is correct that a broad interpretation of claims
1 and 2 permits the bottom layer to be made of a tungsten
alloy, the intermediate layer to be made of a rhenium alloy,
and the top layer to be made of scandium oxide. These are
different materials, however. As pointed out by appellants,
Watanabe requires that each of the layers be made of the exact
same material. The examiner has not identified any
composition of material disclosed in Watanabe which is
simultaneously a tungsten alloy, a rhenium alloy and scandium
oxide. In other words, although each layer in Watanabe could
presumably have tungsten, rhenium and/or scandium oxide as a
component thereof, the examiner has not explained how such a
composition can be accurately identified as a tungsten alloy
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007