Ex parte OUYANG et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 96-3906                                                          
          Application No. 08/038,588                                                  


               This appeal was taken from the examiner's decision                     
          rejecting claims 1, 2 and 4 through 6.  Claims 8 through 13,                
          which are the                                                               
          only other claims remaining in the application, stand                       
          withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner as                     
          directed to a non-elected invention.                                        
               Claim 1, which is illustrative of the subject matter on                
          appeal, reads as follows:                                                   
               1.  A method for preparing metal surfaces for the                      
          application of paint and siccative coatings thereto comprising              
          adding an effective amount to said metal surfaces of an                     
          aqueous solution of citric acid, a hydroxycarboxylic acid                   
          salt, a nonionic surfactant having an HLB of about 3 to about               
          8 and sodium xylene sulfonate.                                              
               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          
          Austin                            3,879,216         Apr. 22, 1975           
          Holder et al. (Holder)            4,789,406         Dec.  6, 1988           
          King et al. (King)                4,599,116         July  8, 1986           
          VanEenam                          5,080,831         Jan. 14, 1992           
               Claims 1, 2 and 4 through 6 stand rejected under                       
          35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite.  Claims 1, 2              
          and 4 through 6 also stand rejected as based on a                           
          specification which does not comply with the description and                
          enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.                
          Finally, claims 1, 2 and 4 through 6 stand rejected under                   
                                         -2-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007