Appeal No. 1999-2173
Application No. 08/865,952
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Beyer (Answer, page 4);
(4) claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Buran (id.);
(5) claims 8, 9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Buran in view of either Longo or
Anand (Answer, page 5).
We reverse all of the rejections on appeal for reasons
which follow.
OPINION
A. The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claim 1 stands rejected under section 102(b) over Beyer
(Answer, page 3). Claims 1-3 and 5 stand rejected under
section 102(b) over Buran (id.).
The examiner finds that Beyer discloses molybdenum based
powders which may contain a molybdenum-tungsten alloy powder,
while further containing carbon “partly in an unbound,
dissolved state” (id., citing Beyer, col. 2, l. 42 and ll. 45-
55). From these findings, the examiner concludes that Beyer
implies that the other part of the carbon is in a bound state,
“i.e.[,] is present as a carbide, thus defining the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007