Appeal No. 2002-0190
Application No. 09/149,018
layer of sulfur-concentrated material as required by the
appellants’ claim 1.3
We therefore conclude that the examiner has not carried
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of
the methods recited in the appellants’ claims 1-5, 9, 11, 12
and 20.
Rejections of claim 17
For the reasons given above regarding the rejection of
claim 1, the examiner has not established that McMordie would
have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
desulfurizing the article.
As for the requirement in the appellants’ claim 17 that the
thickness of material removed from the surface of the article is
about 0.5 to about 2 micrometers, the examiner argues that this
thickness is inside the disclosure of McMordie (answer, page 2).
McMordie, however, does not disclose the thickness of the layer
of undiffused coating residue that is removed, and the examiner
3 Moreover, in each instance in which McMordie discloses removing undiffused coating
residues, the diffusion temperature is 885ºC, which is below the temperature range recited in the
appellants’ claim 1 (982-1079ºC). When McMordie uses diffusion temperatures within the
appellants’ range, there is no disclosure of removing undiffused residues (col. 11, lines 8-9; col.
13, lines 5, 13, 30 and 40). The examiner has not established that McMordie would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, carrying out the diffusion at a temperature within the
appellants’ range and then removing undiffused coating residues.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007