Appeal No. 2000-1737
Application No. 08/965,180
teaching of the proper use of this alloy or its suitability
for any purpose.
While the examiner has cited Marin, for its teaching of a
known example of molybdenum, titanium, and zirconium used as a
friction material, we are in agreement with appellants that
the Marin discussion of molybdenum, zirconium, and titanium is
in the context of finally divided individual additive
particles of each of these elements held in place on tape by
phenolic condensation product binders. As such, the Marin
disclosure can in no manner suggest the use of The Science and
Technology alloy in the safety brake pad of Okada. The
examiner's statement that Marin discloses "the essence of
applicants' invention" is erroneous for two reasons. First,
as noted above, Marin suggests using individual particles of
nitrides of the refractory metals including titanium,
zirconium and the like rather than an alloy of these
materials. Secondly, obviousness is not determined with
respect to finding "the essence of an invention" in the prior
art.
Thus we find ourselves in agreement with appellants that
there is no teaching or suggestion of using The Science and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007