Ex parte ROLAND et al. - Page 8
Legal Research Home >
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences > 2000 > Ex parte ROLAND et al. - Page 8
Appeal No. 1996-3470
containing solution and a nitrite accelerator, we reiterate that
appellants have made no side-by-side comparison with coatings
formed by the Gehmecker process. Further, although the
comparative Example 2 is said to clearly show the positive
influence of a nitrite-free phosphating solution in the
phosphating of a galvanized metal surface, we observe that no
claim on appeal is so limited.
Appellants have specifically directed arguments to the
dependent claims on appeal. However, the examiner has adequately
responded to appellants’ arguments regarding the subject matter
defined by these claims. See the answer at page 4.
We have carefully considered all the arguments advanced
by appellants in their briefs. Nevertheless, we agree with the
examiner that the combined teachings of the relied upon
references establish a prima facie case of obviousness that has
not been rebutted by objective evidence of nonobviousness. Thus,
we agree with the examiner's ultimate legal conclusion that the
subject matter defined by the appealed claims would have been
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: November 3, 2007