Appeal No. 2003-2003
Application No. 09/746,474
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advocated by
the appellants and by the examiner, we refer to the brief (i.e.,
Paper No. 19, filed February 7, 2003) as well as the reply brief
and to the answer as well as the final Office action (i.e., Paper
No. 10, mailed May 15, 2002) for a complete exposition thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth in the answer (as well as the
final Office action) and below, we will sustain each of the above
noted rejections.
We share the examiner’s conclusion that it would have been
obvious for one with an ordinary level of skill in the art to
provide Welty’s coated article with a coating having a nickel or
lustrous gray or silver color such as a titanium aluminum
nitride, a chromium nitride or a di-titanium nitride coating of
the type taught by Meckel (e.g., see lines 6-9 in column 8)
wherein this last mentioned coating contains a substoichiometric
amount of nitrogen in a range of from about 6 to about 45 atomic
percent. As explained by the examiner (and not contested by the
1(...continued)
the sole independent claim on appeal, in assessing the merits of
the rejections before us. See In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642, 199
USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978) and compare In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d
1379, 1382-85, 63 USPQ2d 1462, 1464-66 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Also
see 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(8)(2002).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007