Appeal No. 2000-1835
Application No. 08/868,092 Page 8
are not persuasive. Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner’s
§ 103 rejection of claim 18.
However, with respect to dependent claims 17 and 19, we side
with appellants. With respect to claim 17, the examiner
additionally relies on Hou to suggest the use of a polyquaternary
amine in Pendleton. Here, the examiner (answer, page 8)
predicates the rejection on the assumption that Pendleton would
not appear to require a particular polyelectrolyte polymer and
that Hou teaches a quaternary ammonium group. However, Hou is
concerned with forming a filter sheet from cellulose fibers
and uses the polyelectrolytes suggested therein as a charge
modifier for such a sheet. The examiner has not reasonably
explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to modify the polyelectrolyte used in pretreating a surface
prior to carbonaceous material deposition and electroplating as
discussed in Pendleton based on the teachings of Hou with respect
to a charge modifier for a filter sheet.
With respect to dependent claim 19, the examiner (answer,
page 9) argues that adding a surfactant to the treating solution
of Pendleton would have been obvious without the citation of any
evidence to substantiate that position. Of course, it is the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007