Appeal No. 2000-0049
Application 08/826,209
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s rejections.3
Remand
The appellant’s claim 7 requires that a polycrystalline
diamond film structure having a layer with a non-{100}
crystallographic faceting and a layer with a {100}
crystallographic faceting is applied to a base surface. The
claim does not specify the order of the layers on the base
surface.
Okamura discloses applying a (111) oriented diamond layer
and then a (100) oriented diamond layer onto an Si substrate,
each layer having a 100 µm thickness, and then brazing the
(100) oriented layer onto a wear part, the heat from the
brazing causing the (111) oriented layer to peel off of the Si
substrate, thereby producing the desired cutting tool (pages
7-8). Thus, Okamura specifically discloses each of the
limitations of the appellant’s claim 7 except the requirement
that the second layer has a thickness sufficient to overgrow
the roughness of the surface of the first layer.
The examiner does not rely upon the admitted prior art in the rejection of claims 3 and 10 for3
a disclosure which remedies the above-discussed deficiency in the examiner’s argument with respect to
Okamura and Taniguchi.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007