Appeal No. 2002-0293 Page 3
Application No. 09/192,564
7. A diamond film having a surface roughness (Rms) of from 0.5 to 10.0 nm.
13. A diamond film having a surface roughness (Rms) of from 0.5 to 3.0 nm.
In rejecting appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner relies solely
on the teaching in the background section of the Malshe patent, which deals with
polishing of diamond films, that, “[w]hile ion beam methods produce a surface finish on
the order of 0.005 microns, the surface roughness is non-uniform due to ion-beam non-
uniformity” (column 3, lines 54-57). While the examiner has rejected claim 7 as being
unpatentable over Malshe and not anticipated by Malshe, it appears that the examiner’s
position is, in fact, that the diamond film produced by the ion beam methods referred to
in the Malshe patent meets all of the limitations of claim 7 (see answer, page 4).
Appellant argues that, because Malshe does not define the terminology “surface
finish,” Malshe fails to suggest any surface roughness, much less the recited “surface
roughness (Rms)” (brief, pages 5-6). In particular, appellant, referring to the discussion
of surface texture in Metals Handbook Desk Edition, pp. 27-20 through 27-22
(American Society For Metals, 1985), appended to the brief, contends that:
Surface finish is a colloquial term widely used to denote the
general quality of a surface, Surface finish is not specifically
tied to the texture or characteristic pattern of the surface, nor
is it tied to specific roughness values; however, a “good”
finish implies low roughness values and vice versa. The
term surface finish is not as precisely defined as are the
terminologies used in the American National Standard, nor
is it necessarily expressed numerically [Metals Handbook, p.
27-21].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007