Appeal No. 2002-1401
Application No. 09/187/226
before pouring or during pouring is deemed to be nothing more
than an obvious choice of design since the final composition of
the base material is the same” (answer, page 4). Although the
appellants have challenged this argument (brief, page 17), the
examiner has provided no supporting evidence. Consequently, we
reverse the rejection of claims 7 and 10.
Claims 15-18
Claim 15 requires a covering layer consisting of 1) TiO2 and
2) a ceramic material comprising aluminum. The appellants
acknowledge that it was known in the art to cover composite
materials with a layer of a ceramic material such as Al2O3 or AlN
to increase the resistance to oxidation or corrosion
(specification, page 1, lines 28-33).
The examiner argues that in view of the disclosure in
FR ‘878 of increasing the abrasion resistance of an aluminum or
aluminum alloy substrate by coating it with TiO2, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to coat
Premkumar’s base material with TiO2 to obtain increased abrasion
resistance (answer, page 5).
The FR ‘878 aluminum or aluminum alloy substrate is an
ultrasound weld electrode or electrode insert for ultrasound
welding (page 1). A coating of a material such as Al2O3 or TiO2
is applied to the substrate to increase its abrasion resistance
Page 9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007