Appeal No. 2001-2677
Application No. 08/625,008
The references of record relied upon as evidence of
obviousness are:
O'Neill et al. (O'Neill) 3,794,707 Feb. 26, 1974
Wada et al. (Wada) 4,607,316 Aug. 19, 1986
REJECTION
Claims 2, and 4 through 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over O'Neill in view of Wada.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejection on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As a
result of this review, we have determined that the applied prior
art does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to the claims on appeal. Therefore, the rejection on
appeal is reversed. Our reasons follow.
To summarize the examiner's rationale underlying the
rejection, the examiner notes that O'Neill teaches the method
steps claimed in claims 8 and 15. The specific range of Vickers
hardness and surface roughness called for in these independent
claims are stated by the examiner to be a natural consequence of
performing the method within the recited range of parameters.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007