Appeal No. 2002-0912 Page 8
Application No. 08/913,187
their invention by the appellants. Thus, the appellants’ arguments to the contrary are
not persuasive.
Claim 3 adds to claim 1, and claim 6 to claim 5, the requirement that the
intermediate layer comprise a lower layer of titanium, chromium or a compound
containing titanium or chromium, and an upper layer of silicon, germanium or a
compound containing silicon or germanium. The examiner has rejected claims 3 and 6
as being unpatentable over Yamada and Toshimitsu, taken further with Yoshino, which
was cited for its teaching of forming intermediate layers as recited in the claim to
support hard carbon films. The first argument presented by the appellants with regard
to this matter is that Yoshino doesn’t supply the deficiencies present in Yamada and
Toshimitsu. Since we found no such deficiencies to exist, and have sustained the
rejection of claims 1 and 5, this argument is not persuasive. The second argument is
that the combination of references does not suggest using the two-layer film set forth in
claims 3 and 6 in the guide bush of a lathe. As to this, we first point out that the
obviousness of providing an intermediate layer to promote adhesion of the hard carbon
film to the metal inner surface already was established above with regard to claim 1.
Yoshino explains that hard carbon films deposited on metallic members can peel off
easily (translation, page 3), and teaches solving this problem by utilizing a two-layer film
having one layer of Cr or Ti and another of Si or Ge between the hard carbon film and
the metallic layer. According to Yoshino, this will “dramatically improve the adhesion”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007