Appeal No. 1998-1869
Application 08/688,423
layer, a rhenium alloy layer and a scandium oxide layer.
In summary, the examiner has not explained how the
different materials of the layers recited in claims 1 and 2
are satisfied by the same materials of the layers disclosed by
Watanabe. Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 1 and 2. Since the rejection
of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 relies upon the examiner’s
incorrect finding of anticipation as discussed above, we also
do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
In conclusion, we have not sustained either of the
examiner’s rejections of the appealed claims. Accordingly,
the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2 and 4 is
reversed. REVERSED
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007