Appeal No. 2003-0292 Page 10
Application No. 09/584,032
it is our opinion that due to the disparate nature of the inventions of Louis and Babecki
(i.e., Louis does not peen the article being coated while Babecki does peen the article
being coated) there is no reason in the teachings of the applied prior art for a person of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have coated Louis' carrier
particles with zinc as alleged by the examiner in the rejections before us in this appeal.
It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner's rejections of claims 1 to 10 and 15 to
20.2
2 We have reviewed the reference to Lienert additionally applied in the rejection of dependent
claims 2, 9 and 20 but find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiencies of Louis and Babecki
discussed above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007