Appeal No. 2002-0018
Application No. 09/231,897
“conventional” technology that Matsui rejects as being too soft. As cogently argued by appellant on
page 4 of the reply brief, the examiner’s approach would have the person of ordinary skill behave
contrary to logic, by selecting a material on the basis of a single vague and general statement about
abrasion resistance in the face of a detailed explanation in Matsui, the primary reference, about the
benefits of choosing much harder materials than disclosed in Buehler.
In light of the forgoing, the standing rejection of claims 1, 2, 16, 19, 24, 28-30, 32, 33 and 36
as being unpatentable over Matsui in view of Buehler cannot be sustained.
As for the standing rejection of claims 3, 17, 18, 25-27, 31, 34 and 35 as being unpatentable
further in view of Munoz, we have carefully considering the teachings of this additional reference
but find nothing therein that makes up for the deficiencies of Matsui and Buehler discussed above.
Accordingly the rejection of claims 3, 17, 18, 25-27, 31, 34 and 35 also cannot be sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007