Appeal No. 2000-0178
Application 08/686,630
discussed in Epstein (‘957), columns 18 and 19. In our view, an
article resulting from applying the teachings of Epstein (‘957)
to an intermetallic material target as suggested therein would be
identical to that set forth in appellants’ claim 1 on appeal.
In addition, we REMAND this application to the examiner to
consider the collective teachings of Baumann (5,415,831) and
Singheiser (5,393,356) which disclose higher ductility
intermetallic materials that are suitable for use as gas turbine
blades, along with the teachings of Epstein (5,131,957) and the
other prior art relied upon by the examiner in the final
rejection and any other prior art developed by the examiner, with
an eye toward evaluating the patentability of claims 2 through
10, 14 and 17 through 20 of this application under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 CFR § 1.196(b). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that, “A new
ground of rejection shall not be considered final for purposes of
judicial review.”
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007