Appeal No. 2000-2181
Application No. 08/966,229
claims 2 and 20. With respect to claim 15, appellants
acknowledge (brief, page 12) that the additional reference to
Daughenbaugh discloses “securing layers, and clearly has both a
carrier body and a support body,” but argue (brief, page 12)
that such structure is not arranged in the manner set forth in
these claims. We agree. Thus, the obviousness rejection of
claims 2, 15 and 20 is reversed.
The obviousness rejection of claim 19 is reversed because
Zieren discloses (Figure 3) a wear-resistant layer 31 over the
head face and the substrate as opposed to “between” the substrate
and the head face.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
4 and 11 through 20 is affirmed as to claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 14,
17 and 18, and is reversed as to claims 2, 12, 13, 15, 16,
19 and 20. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is
affirmed-in-part.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007