Appeal 2007-1388
Application 10/431,346
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method of forming a
protective overglaze on an electronic device surface. The method includes
steps of applying a lead-free and cadmium–free glass composition to the
surface of the electronic device and firing the glass composition to form the
protective overglaze.
On April 07, 2006, the Appellants submitted a Brief. In the Brief, the
Appellants present arguments against the Examiner’s two stated rejections,
noting that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-12 and 16
over Hormadaly (U.S. Pat. No. 6,171,987) in combination with Tunker (U.S.
Pat. 5,827,789), Nigrin (U.S. Pat No. 4,285,731), or Clifford (U.S. Pat No.
5,244,848) should have been expressed as an obviousness rejection because
three separate secondary references were combined with the primary
reference. See Brief 5, footnote 1 and Final Office Action 2-3.
In an apparent uncompromising manner despite Appellants’
notification of this anomaly in footnote 1 of the Brief, the Answer dated
June 22, 2006 maintains the anticipation rejection of claims 1-11 and 29-37
over the above-noted references while employing an obviousness analysis.
This continued inconsistency goes unabated not withstanding that the
Examiner’s Answer bears the initials or signatures of two Appeal Conferees
in addition to the Examiner’s signature. In addition, the Examiner
acknowledges that Hormadaly does not teach titanium dioxide as being
present in the applied glass composition in an amount that corresponds to the
claimed amount for that glass constituent (Answer 3). However, the
Examiner does not explain how close the claimed titanium dioxide is to the
disclosed amount for that constituent disclosed or suggested by Hormadaly.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013