Appeal No. 2001-1553 Page 12
Application No. 09/224,757
instead insisting that the definition of “monolithic” is not intended to exclude sintering
and does not require that the compound be “undifferentiated throughout” (answer, page
8). The examiner additionally asserts that Hribernik “is not directed only or exclusively
to forming by sintering (see entire disclosure)” (answer, page 8). As the examiner has
not pointed out where Hribernik discloses formation of the liner in a manner other than
sintering (powder-metallurgical forming) and we can find no such disclosure in
Hribernik, the examiner has not set forth a reasonable basis to establish that the barrel
liner of Hribernik is a “monolithic nickel-titanium intermetallic compound” as called for in
claims 10 and 21.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision to reject claim 21 as being anticipated by
Hribernik is reversed. In that the above-noted deficiency of Hribernik finds no cure in
Dabrowski, we also reverse the examiner’s decision to reject claim 10 as being
unpatentable over Hribernik in view of Dabrowski.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007