Appeal No. 2002-1600
Application 09/350,858
The appellants argue that Nagle adds his Sc, Hf, Nb, Mo or V
metal component of the carbide particles as a powder, whereas the
appellants provide this metal component as part of the molten
composition (brief, page 7). This argument is not persuasive
because Nagle teaches that the metal component can be dissolved
in the solvent/matrix prior to addition of the carbon component
of the carbide particles (col. 6, lines 37-68).
The appellants argue that Nagle does not disclose a uniform
cluster-free distribution of no more than two particles attached
to one another at a magnification of 500X, and does not disclose
various percentages of carbide particles (brief, pages 7 and 9-
10). This argument is not convincing because the argued
limitations are not in the appellants’ claims.
For the above reasons we conclude that the ceramic
dispersoid claimed in the appellants’ claim 19 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art over Nagle.
New ground of rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b) we enter the
following new ground of rejection.
Claims 18, 20-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Nagle.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007