Appeal No. 1999-2173
Application No. 08/865,952
‘molybdenum carbide precipitates’ recited in the appealed
claim [claim 1].” Id.
On this record, we cannot agree with the examiner.
Although we agree with the examiner that Beyer implicitly
teaches that generally up to 70 weight percent of the carbon
is in the bound state (see Beyer, col. 3, ll. 47-48), on this
record we determine that the examiner has failed to establish
by evidence or convincing reason that the bound carbon of
Beyer is bound to molybdenum. Therefore the examiner has not
convincingly shown that molybdenum carbide would have been
present in the welding powder of Beyer. Since claim 1 on
appeal requires “molybdenum carbide precipitates,” we cannot
sustain the examiner’s rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b). See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655,
1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Rejection for anticipation requires that
all elements of the claimed invention be described in a single
reference).
The examiner finds that Buran discloses a spray coating
composition comprising a molybdenum-based powder, a nickel-
based alloy, and molybdenum carbide, and further containing
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007