Appeal No. 2002-0293 Page 2
Application No. 09/192,564
The appellant's invention relates to a diamond film having “a polished surface of
excellent smoothness” (specification, page 1). Further understanding of the invention
may be obtained from a reading of independent claims 7 and 13, which are reproduced
in the Opinion section of this decision.
The sole prior art reference relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness is:
Malshe 5,472,370 Dec. 5, 1995
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 7, 8, 10 and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Malshe.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 14) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to
the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 13 and 16) for the appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The two independent claims before us on appeal read as follows:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007