Ex Parte Tsutsumino - Page 8

               Appeal 2007-4313                                                                            
               Application 10/286,172                                                                      
               Lowenheim as authorities in small-piece electroplating, but rather as                       
               evidence of what is generally known in the electrochemical arts.                            
                      Those skilled in the general electrochemical arts would have                         
               appreciated that a larger cathode surface exposed to the solution would                     
               increase the rate of electrochemical changes.  Those in the electroplating art              
               would have appreciated that greater cathode surface area would relate to the                
               plating rate.                                                                               
                      Murata argues that the problem it is solving is different than the one               
               addressed by increasing current.  A larger cathode surface solves more than                 
               one problem.  It does not matter which problem leads to the adoption of the                 
               grooved cathode since doing so solves both problems.  A nice side benefit of                
               adopting a grooved cathode would be that it would incidentally increase the                 
               cathode area available for contact with, and the agitation of, the small pieces             
               in the solution.                                                                            
                      Finally, while Murata correctly notes that the grooves in Oesterle's                 
               vertical cathode are vertically oriented in the side faces of the cathode.                  
               From this Murata argues that moving the grooves to the upper surface of                     
               Oesterle's cathode would make no sense.  We agree, but the argument                         
               misapprehends the rejection and underestimates the skill in the art.  The                   
               rejection proceeds from the premise that the reason for putting grooves into                
               the cathode involves increasing cathode surface in contact with the solution.               
               The cathode in the admitted prior art that is being improved contacts the                   
               solution on its upper surface.  Thus, to apply the teachings of the prior art to            
               the admitted prior art, those in the art would modify the upper surface of the              
               admitted prior art cathode to increase its contact with the solution.                       



                                                    8                                                      

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013