Appeal No. 2006-0263
Application No. 10/379,264
note that appellants have not set forth a separate substantive
argument for the separate § 103 rejection of claims 6, 9, 10
and 24.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. 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 rejections.
There is no dispute that Goel, like appellants, discloses a
razor blade comprising a cutting edge and a coating comprising a
carbon-containing material, i.e., a diamond-like carbon and a
chromium dopant, with no interlayer between the carbon-containing
material and the cutting edge of the blade. Goel also teaches
that the coating comprises a silicon network that interpenetrates
the diamond-like carbon material network. However, inasmuch as
the BACKGROUND section of Goel evidences that it was known in the
art to use coatings of diamond-like materials for razor blades,
we are satisfied that it would have been obvious for one of
ordinary skill in the art to eliminate the silicon network of
Goel along with its described advantages. It is well settled
that the omission of a feature disclosed by the prior art along
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007