Appeal No. 2005-2453
Application No. 10/102,923
However, appellants provide a reasonably specific argument only
for claims 6 and 10. Accordingly, claims 2, 3, 7-9, 11, 12 and
14-17 stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability, as well as the specification data relied upon
in support thereof. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
As we stated in our remand, there is apparently no dispute
that Iwashita, like appellants, discloses a piston ring
comprising a continuous hard carbon film containing one or more
of silicon, tungsten and nickel. While Iwashita fails to teach
that the hard carbon film is on every surface of the piston ring,
we fully concur with the examiner that Tanaka evidences the
obviousness of providing the film on all such surfaces. In
particular, Tanaka provides substantial evidence that it was
known in the art to coat a hard film on only one outer surface of
the piston ring, on three surfaces, or on every surface of the
piston ring. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the examiner
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007