Ex Parte Kujirai - Page 8

                Appeal 2006-2293                                                                                   
                Application 10/471,932                                                                             
                provide sufficient corrosion protection in the context of Kent's invention, to                     
                offset Kent's discouragement of a thickness less than 9 microns.  On balance,                      
                a person of ordinary skill in the art, possessed with knowledge of the                             
                teachings of Kent and Siak, would have been discouraged from providing a                           
                coating metal layer within the range called for in Appellant's claims, rather                      
                than prompted to do so.  Accordingly, the modification would not have been                         
                obvious.                                                                                           
                       Moreover, even if Kent were modified as proposed by the Examiner,                           
                Kent does not disclose the relative heat capacities of the aluminum fin and                        
                the zinc layer or provide sufficient information about the aluminum fin and                        
                the coating to permit determination of the relative heat capacities to ascertain                   
                whether the relative heat capacity limitation of Appellant's claims is                             
                satisfied.                                                                                         
                       For the above reasons, we conclude that the Examiner has not                                
                discharged the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of                                
                obviousness of the subject matter of independent claims 28 and 45 or claims                        
                29, 30, 32, 33, 42-44, 46-48, and 52-54 depending from claims 28 and 45.                           
                The rejection is reversed.                                                                         












                                                        8                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013