Appeal No. 2003-1200
Application No. 09/319,142
Gregory (e.g., see the paragraph bridging columns 3 and 4 and the
first full paragraph in column 4).3 Upon depositing a thin
coating of diamond on this support pursuant to the teachings of
Nassau, the resulting gemstone would fully correspond to the
gemstone defined by appealed independent claim 16.
For the reasons discussed above and in the answer, the
Nassau and Gregory references evince a prima facie case of
obviousness for the appealed claim 16 subject matter which the
appellants have not successfully rebutted with argument or
evidence in support of nonobviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We reach a
corresponding determination with respect to the separate
rejection based on these references and further in view of
Lampert since the only arguments concerning this rejection are
those advanced and found unconvincing with respect to independent
3 As a matter of completeness, we point out that an artisan would have
effected this provision via a metal support in the manner taught by Gregory
(which would correspond to the appellants’ metal support embodiment; e.g., see
lines 20-25 on specification page 3) or via a KOH-etched silicon support in
the manner taught by Nassau (e.g., see lines 48-56 in column 4 and lines 7-12
in column 5)(which would correspond to the appellants’ disclosed silicon
support embodiment; e.g., see lines 1-8 on specification page 4); and the
appellants do not argue otherwise on the record of this appeal.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007