Appeal No. 2006-2027
Application No. 10/735,370
cerium in the oxidation state of +4 for the stable oxide of
Subramanian.
Appellants cite Subramanian at column 2, lines 25-40 where
cerium is not mentioned as a possible material for C in the
formula CzOw. Relying solely upon this section of the reference,
appellants make the argument that “it is apparent that component
C cannot possibly be Ce, and Subramanian’s CzOw cannot possibly
be CezOw, as argued at many locations in the Examiner’s Answer”
(page 3 of the reply brief, last paragraph). However, the
relevant teaching of Subramanian is at column 5, lines 34
et. seq.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 1-7, 9 and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Subramanian in view of Stoffer and Ueda.
We will not sustain this rejection. Appellants correctly argue
that Subramanian does not teach depositing a cerium-oxide-
precursor compound onto the primary ceramic coating wherein the
cerium-oxide-precursor compound is not cerium-oxide with cerium
in a +4 oxidation state, and then heating the cerium-oxide-
precursor compound to form cerium-oxide with cerium in the +4
oxidation state. While the examiner states that Subramanian
teaches that “a cerium-oxide compound can be applied to the
surface of the primary cerium coating” (page 14 of answer,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007