Appeal No. 2001-1306
Application No. 08/939,762
of Osame. Additionally, the examiner has not shown by convincing
evidence or reasoning why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have used the alumina-titania ceramic coating of Kazakos on the
brazed surface of Osame. The examiner states the reasoning that
the ceramic coating would have been used “because it protected the
brazed surface and negates corrosion effects.” Paper No. 8, page
4. However, the examiner has not shown any basis for this
reasoning in the applied references, i.e., where in Osame was there
a need for protecting the brazed surface and negating corrosion
effects and where was the corresponding teaching in Kazakos.
Finally, we agree with appellants that the examiner has not
shown that Kazakos is analogous art (Brief, pages 13-15). The
examiner merely states that Kazakos “demonstrates the coating of a
metal rod with alumina-titania” (Answer, page 4) but has not shown
that Kazakos is within the field of endeavor of appellants or is
reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which
appellants are involved. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1481, 31
USPQ2d 1671, 1675-76 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
For the foregoing reasons and those in the Brief and Reply
Brief, we determine that the examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness based on the reference evidence.
Accordingly, we reverse all of the rejections on appeal.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007