Appeal No. 2006-2660
Application 10/007,021
32. An article having a coating on at least a portion of a surface of said article, said
article comprising
a substrate consisting essentially of zinc or aluminum;
a nickel layer;
a strike layer consisting essentially of zirconium, titanium or zirconium-titanium alloy
directly contacting said nickel layer and having a thickness less than millionths of an inch; and
an outer layer consisting essentially of zirconium compound, titanium compound, or
zirconium-titanium alloy compound directly contacting said strike layer, and said outer layer is
uncoated.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Fink 5,759,677 Jun. 2, 1998
Foster et al. (Foster) 5,879,532 Mar. 9, 1999
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 22 through 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
(2002) as being anticipated by Foster (answer, pages 3-4), and claims 39 and 43 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Foster as applied to claims 22 through 53 further in view of
Fink (answer, page 4).
Appellants argue the rejected claims as a group with respect to the first and second
grounds of rejection (brief, pages 2 and 5). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed
independent claims 22 and 32 and dependent claim 39 as representative of the grounds of
rejection and appellants’ groupings of claims. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
We affirm.
We refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition of the
positions advanced by the examiner and appellants.
Opinion
Considering first the ground of rejection under § 102(e), we have carefully reviewed the
record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in agreement with the supported finding
advanced by the examiner that as a matter of fact, prima facie, appealed claims 22 and 32 are
anticipated by Foster. Therefore, in view of the prima facie case of anticipation made out by the
examiner, we have again evaluated all of the evidence of anticipation and non-anticipation based
on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to the weight of appellants’ arguments in the
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007