Appeal No. 2005-2453
Application No. 10/102,923
that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
art to coat all the surfaces of a piston ring with the hard
carbon film of Iwashita, taking into account a typical
cost/benefit analysis for doing so. While appellants point to
the difference in composition between the hard carbon film of
Iwashita and the hard film of Tanaka, we are not persuaded by
appellants that such a difference undermines the obviousness of
coating the entirety of a piston ring with the hard carbon film
of Iwashita. Also, we note that the hard film of Tanaka may
contain carbon.
Appellants direct our attention to the comparative data at
Table 2, page 24 of the present specification "to compare
especially the differences between the piston ring and piston
ring-piston examples of Example 1 and Comparative Example 1"
(page 9 of principal brief, second paragraph). Appellants submit
that "[a] comparison of the two above-cited examples shows
superior peeling resistance, and ring top, bottom and inner
surface wear resistance index in Example 1 over the corresponding
values for Comparative Example 1" (id.).
Our review of the specification data leads us to the same
conclusion drawn by the examiner, i.e., that the evidence of
obviousness represented by the combined teachings of Iwashita and
Tanaka outweighs the evidence of nonobviousness in the form of
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007