Ex parte SAMPATH et al. - Page 3




          Appeal No. 1999-2173                                                       
          Application No. 08/865,952                                                 


          comprises an alloy selected from molybdenum-chromium,                      
          molybdenum-tungsten, and molybdenum-tungsten-chromium alloys,              
          dispersion strengthened with molybdenum carbide precipitates               
          (Brief, page 2).  A copy of illustrative independent claim 1               
          is reproduced below:                                                       
                    1.  A molybdenum-based composite powder for thermal              
               spray applications, said composite powder comprising an               
               alloy selected from the group consisting of molybdenum-               
               chromium, molybdenum-tungsten, and molybdenum-tungsten-               
               chromium alloys dispersion strengthened with molybdenum               
               carbide precipitates.                                                 
               The examiner has relied upon the following references as              
          support for the rejections on appeal:                                      
          Longo                       3,313,633             Apr. 11,                 
          1967                                                                       
          Beyer et al. (Beyer)        3,890,137             Jun. 17,                 
          1975                                                                       
          Buran et al. (Buran)        4,756,841             Jul. 12,                 
          1988                                                                       
          Anand et al. (Anand)        5,063,021             Nov. 05,                 
          1991                                                                       
               The following rejections are before us in this appeal:                
               (1) claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as               
          anticipated by Beyer (Answer, page 3);                                     
               (2) claims 1-3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §                 
          102(b) as anticipated by Buran (id.);                                      
               (3) claims 2-4, 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.              
                                         3                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007