Appeal No. 1999-2173
Application No. 08/865,952
that Buran discloses or teaches any of these required alloys.
The examiner does find that Buran teaches the possible
addition of chromium (see col. 2, ll. 50-53, and the Answer,
page 3). If the examiner is implying that the chromium added
to the molybdenum spray powder of Buran forms a molybdenum-
chromium alloy under the plasma flame spraying conditions,
there is no convincing evidence or reasoning advanced by the
examiner in the record to support this implication.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
section 102(b) over Buran. Similarly, claims 2 and 3, which
depend on claim 1 and thus are more limited, and claim 5,
which is of the same scope as claim 1 but includes a nickel-
based or cobalt-based alloy, are not described by Buran within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
B. The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The examiner’s evidence of obviousness in the rejections
under section 103(a) includes Beyer alone, Buran alone, or
Buran in view of Longo or Anand (Answer, pages 4 and 5). The
examiner has not pointed to any additional disclosure or
teachings of Beyer or Buran that would remedy the deficiencies
discussed above. Furthermore, Longo or Anand have been
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007