Appeal No. 2006-2027
Application No. 10/735,370
have suggested modifying Subramanian to perform the claimed
steps of heating a deposited cerium-oxide-precursor to cerium-
oxide.
The examiner’s separate rejections of claim 10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 suffers the same deficiency discussed above with
respect to the § 103 rejection of claims 1-7, 9 and 11. Taylor,
cited by the examiner for its teaching of a zirconia coat
comprising 7 wt.% yttria, does not cure the deficiency of
Subramanian.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed,
whereas the rejection of claims 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
affirmed. The examiner’s rejections of claims 1-7 and 9-11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are also reversed. Accordingly, the
examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed-
in-part.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007