Appeal No. 95-0044
Application 07/982,999
removal process.” (Page 6 of Answer). However, we fully concur
with appellant that when the claim language is read in light of
the present specification, as it must be, it is abundantly clear
that the organic particulate matter is removed from the
electroplating composition. Furthermore, as is evident from the
prior art cited in the present specification and applied by the
examiner, one of ordinary skill in the art would have no
difficulty in understanding how the copper foil is processed in
the claimed electrolytic treatment. Regarding the examiner’s
statement that “[c]laim 1 as written does not specifically state
that the gelatin is the organic particulate matter that Appellant
is trying to remove from the bath,” (page 10 of Answer), it is
clear from the present specification that it is not gelatin, but
a gelatin by-product, that is the organic particulate matter.
We now turn to the examiner’s § 103 rejection. We find no
error in the examiner’s conclusion that the combined teachings of
Herbert and DiFranco evidence that it was known in the art to
electrolytically treat copper foil with an electroplating
composition containing a gelatin component. However, as
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007