Appeal No. 96-2797
Application No. 08/432,474
we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of the appealed
claims based on an anticipation theory.
On the other hand, we find that the examiner has adequate
factual support for the rejection of appealed claim 1 based on
an obviousness rationale (35 U.S.C. § 103). In this regard,
we find that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood the reference to the application and baking
technique referred to in Beer and de Nora as an exemplary
technique for depositing a reactivating coding of a noble
metal. In this regard, the Beer patent broadly indicates that
an anode core can be covered with a desired noble metal by
techniques such as galvanic plating or by thermal
decomposition. See the reference at column 3, lines 50
through 66. Moreover, Beer specifically discloses that an
electrolytic technique may be used to accomplish the same
purpose. See Beer at column 4, lines 8-17. We recognize, as
argued by appellants, that Beer is describing techniques for
preparing a new anode, not reactivating an old deactivated
anode. However, we agree with the examiner that the
techniques
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007