Ex parte Anthony et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 12, 1998

08119448 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 12, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 9, 1993. According to1
appellants, the application is a continuation of Application 07/899,034, filed
June 15, 1992, which is a continuation of Application 07/783,457, filed October
24, 1991, which is a division of Application 07/694,170, filed May 1, 1991, now
abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written
for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 35
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte THOMAS R. ANTHONY, ROBERT H.
ETTINGER and JAMES F. FLEISCHER
_____________
Appeal No. 95-2327
Application 08/119,4481
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before RONALD H. SMITH, WARREN and WALTZ, Administrative Patent
Judges.
RONALD H. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 24-27
and 30, all the pending claims in the application.
The subject matter relates to a method of producing a
diamond tube by chemical vapor deposition on a hollow mandrel.
Appeal No. 95-2327
Application 08/119,448
2
Claim 24 is illustrative of the appealed claims and reads as
follows:
24. A method of producing a diamond article comprising:
depositing a diamond layer by chemical vapor deposition
on a surface of a thermally stable substrate consisting of a tube
open at both ends and having an inner surface and an outer
surface, said outer surface having a shape substantially the same
as that of the desired interior of said diamond article, while
supporting said substrate to prevent distortion thereof; and
submerging said substrate and diamond layer in a vertical
position in an etching bath and ultrasonically agitating said
etching bath to remove said substrate by etching of the inner
surface thereof.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Jansen et al. (Jansen) 4,925,701 May 15, 1990
Ohata (Japanese Kokai) 1-138110 May 31, 1989
Since appellants' brief does not contain a statement that
the claims do not stand or fall together, the claims do stand or
fall together. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). Accordingly, we will limit
our consideration to claim 24.
Claims 24-27 and 30 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103 as
unpatentable over Ohata alone or when taken in view of Jansen.
Claims 24-27 and 30 stand further rejected under 35 USC § 103 as
unpatentable over Jansen. We reverse.
Appeal No. 95-2327
Application 08/119,448
3
Appellants raise two issues in their brief:
1. Is a prima facie case of obviousness raised by
Jansen or Ohata alone or in combination?
2. Assuming that a prima facie case of obviousness is
raised, has it been rebutted by appellants' showing of decreased
etching time for their hollow substrate?
Adverting to issue 2., we agree with appellants that,
assuming that a prima facie case of obviousness has been
established by the examiner, it has been overcome by appellants'
comparative showing of unexpected results. Since we are in
agreement with appellants' position regarding issue 2 for the
reasons as set forth in the brief, we adopt that position as our
own.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
RONALD H. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
CHARLES F. WARREN )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
Appeal No. 95-2327
Application 08/119,448
4
)
THOMAS A. WALTZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
General Electric Company
CRD Patent Docket Rm 4A59
P.O. Box 8, Bldg. K-1-Salamone
Schenectady, NY 12301