Ex Parte KAMIYAMA et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 1999-0761                                                                         2               
              Application No. 08/174, 957                                                                                  

                      THE INVENTION                                                                                        
              The invention is to a method for treating an aluminum surface wherein an aluminum                            
              alloy heated to a temperature of 200oC or above is etched in a single step process by                        
              exposing the surface to a basic solution containing a chelating agent.  Additional                           
              limitations are disclosed in the following illustrative claim.                                               
                                                       THE CLAIM                                                           
              Claim 1 is illustrative of appellants’ invention and is reproduced below:                                    
                            1.  A method for treating the surface of an aluminum alloy high-                               
                     temperature processed article, comprising heating an aluminum alloy containing                        
                     Mg at a high temperature of 200o of [sic, or] above, etching the surface by a                         
                     single step process of exposing the surface to an aqueous solution containing a                       
                     chelating agent wherein the aqueous solution consists of a solution having a pH                       
                     of 7 or higher, and then carrying out hydration oxidation treatment.1                                 
                                          THE REFERENCES OF RECORD                                                         
              As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the following references:                               
              Chakrabarti et al. (Chakrabarti)           5,055,257                                   Oct. 8, 1991          
              Lowenheim, Electroplating, pp. 74-77, 89-91, and 463-67 (McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1978)                         
                                                   THE REJECTIONS                                                          
              Claims 1, 7 through 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                               
              unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Lowenheim.                                               
              Claims 1, 7 through 15 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                               
              unpatentable over Chakrabarti in view of the admitted prior art and Lowenheim.                               

                     1Claim 1 as originally filed contained the word “or.”  The amendments to claim 1 thereafter contained 
              the word “of” in place of “or.”  The change in terminology, however, was not made in accordance with 37 CFR  
              § 1.121(b).                                                                                                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007