Appeal No. 2002-0912 Page 9
Application No. 08/913,187
between the film and the metal (translation, page 4). In our view, Yoshino thus would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the advantage of further modifying the
Yamada guide bush in the manner set forth in claims 3 and 6. The rejection of claims 3
and 6 therefore is sustained.
Independent claim 7 stands rejected as being unpatentable over Yamada and
Toshimitsu, applied as against claim 1, taken further with Okada. It is the examiner’s
position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to carburize
the inner surface of the Yamada guide bush, as modified by Toshimitsu, prior to
applying the hydrogenated amorphous layer, in order to promote adhesion. The
appellants agree with the examiner that Okada teaches forming a hard carbon surface
on iron type materials by carbonization (Brief, page 14). However, they argue that the
rejection is improper because Okada does not overcome the deficiencies of the first two
references, and provides no teaching of using carburization for forming a hard carbon
film on the surface of a guide bush for a lathe. As to the first argument, we have
decided above that there are no deficiencies in combining Yamada and Toshimitsu. As
to the second, Okada is applied only for its teaching of forming a carburized layer on a
metallic surface in order to promote adhesion, which in our view would have provided
sufficient suggestion to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique to metal
objects in which the problem of adhesion of films exists, including guide bushes. The
rejection of independent claim 7 is sustained.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007