Appeal No. 1997-2834
Application No. 08/190,729
layer having a standard reduction potential less than both the
isolation layer and the base metal layer as defined in the
appealed claims. Since Levine ‘067 is concerned with a
different problem relative to the claimed invention and thus a
different solution, we agree with the appellant that the
combined teachings of the admitted prior art and Levine ‘067
cannot render the subject matter of the appealed claims to be
unpatentable within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103. In re Sponnoble, 405 F.2d 578, 585, 160 USPQ
237, 243 (CCPA 1969) (“[A] patentable invention may lie in the
discovery of the source of a problem even though the remedy
may be obvious once the source of the problem is identified.
This is part of the ‘subject matter as a whole’ which should
always be considered in determining the obviousness of an
invention under 35 U.S.C. 103.”).
Regarding Levine ‘796 and Levine ‘958, these prior art
references are concerned with solving the problem of corrosion
in sealing covers (or lids) comprising a base material (e.g.,
an iron alloy), a layer of nickel, and a layer of gold (column
1, line 15 to column 2, line 9 of Levine ‘796 and column 1,
line 9 to column 2, line 29 of Levine ‘958). However, the
solution proposed in these references is to use additional
nickel and gold layers 18 and 20 (figures 2 and 3, column 2,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007