Appeal No. 2000-0920
Application No. 08/829,034
the ceramic matrix (claim 37). In rejecting these claims, the
examiner has taken the position (answer, page 6) that the
additional features of these dependent claims do not patentably
distinguish over the infiltrating metal alloys and ceramic
powders disclosed in Holt.
Appellant does not specifically dispute the examiner’s
position in these respects. Instead, appellant argues (main
brief, page 6; supplemental brief, pages 3-4) that the rejection
of claims 10, 37 and 38 is improper because the applied
references, taken alone or in combination, fail to teach or
suggest the “infiltrating” and “presintering” features of base
claim 1.
For the reasons set forth supra in our treatment of the
standing anticipation/obviousness rejection of claim 1 based on
Holt, appellant’s argument that the product-by-process
“presintering” feature of base claim 1 patentably distinguishes
over Holt is not persuasive. Moreover, with respect to the
“infiltrating” feature of base claim 1, Holt specifically states
that the metal or metal alloy thereof is “infiltrated” into the
preformed porous ceramic matrix. Accordingly, appellant’s
argument that the “infiltrating” feature of base claim
1 patentably distinguishes over Holt also is not persuasive. In
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007