Appeal No. 2003-2003
Application No. 09/746,474
appellants), this proposed combination would have been motivated
by the commercial desirability of a finish or coating having the
aforementioned color.
In support of their contrary view, the appellants argue that
“[n]owhere does Meckel disclose or suggest a nickel color” and
that “[n]owhere does Meckel disclose or suggest a
substoichiometric amount of nitrogen” (brief, page 5). In this
latter regard, the appellants further argue that “[c]olumn 8,
lines 2-9 [of Meckel, upon which the examiner relies in support
of his obviousness conclusion,] is a one sentence disclosure on
using excess nitrogen to vary color” (brief, page 5). Thus, it
is the appellants’ contention that “[t]he passages of Meckel
[i.e., the aforementioned disclosure at lines 2-9 in column 8]
teach doing just the opposite of what Appellant has [sic,
Appellants have] done, i.e., using excess nitrogen rather than
using Appellants’ substoichiometric amount of nitrogen!” (brief,
page 10).
Like the examiner, we perceive no distinction between the
lustrous gray and silver colors explicitly disclosed by Meckel
and the nickel color required by appealed independent claim 1.
Significantly, the appellants have offered no explanation in
support of their unembellished position that these colors of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007