Appeal 2007-0169
Application 10/262,015
The Appelants only argue that Pisharody does not teach non-claimed
materials for forming nanolaminate components (Br. 4). Specifically, the
Appellants only contend (id.) that:
The rejection of claim 6 should be withdrawn because it
depends from claim 1, which should be allowable over the
reference as discussed above.
Thus, for the reasons indicated above, we determine that Pisharody would
have rendered the subject matter of claim 6 obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
V. CONCLUSION
Having carefully evaluated the claims, Specification and prior art
reference, including the arguments advanced by the Appellants and the
Examiner in support of their respective positions, we determine that the
Examiner’s § § 102(e) and 103(a) rejections are well founded. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims on appeal for
the factual findings and conclusions set forth here and in the Answer.
VI. ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims on appeal under
35 U.S.C. § § 102(e) and 103(a) is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013