Appeal No. 2000-0178
Application 08/686,630
Mannava (‘965), but find nothing therein that provides for that
which we have indicated above to be lacking in the examiner’s
basic combination of Nazmy and the American Machinist article,
the combination that forms the foundation upon which all of the
examiner’s additional rejections are based. Accordingly, the
examiner’s further rejections of claims 3 through 10 and 14
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 will likewise not be sustained.
In light of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1 through 20 of the present application under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter
the following new ground of rejection.
Claims 1, 11 through 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Epstein (‘957).
Epstein (‘957) discloses a method and apparatus for improving
properties (e.g., fatigue life) of a solid material target (11)
by subjecting a surface portion of the target to laser shock
processing which produces an area of residual compressive
stresses extending into the target body from the laser shock
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007