Appeal No. 1996-1644
Application No. 07/933,147
J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 2137-42 (May/June
1990)(hereinafter referred to as “Exhibit 12" consistent with
appellants’ designation).
Hansen et al., “The Hydrophobicity of Diamond Surfaces,”
Ultrahard Materials Application Tech., Vol. 4, pp. 76-87 (ed.
C. Barrett)(De Beers Indus. Diamond Div., London
1988)(hereinafter referred to as “Exhibit 13" consistent with
appellants’ designation).
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
1) Claims 1, 4 through 9, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter
which applicants regard as their invention;
2) Claims 1, 4, 7, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mino alone or in view of Sato;
3) Claims 1, 4, 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Suzuki alone or in view of Sato; and
4) Claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
either Mino or Suzuki, optionally in view of Sato and further
in view of Cozzette or Ueno.
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art, including all of the arguments and evidence
advanced by both the examiner and appellants in support of
their respective positions. This review leads us to conclude
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007