Appeal No. 96-3906
Application No. 08/038,588
respect to enablement, the examiner does not explain why he
doubts the truth or accuracy of any statement in the
supporting disclosure. Nor does the examiner back up
assertions of his own with acceptable evidence or reasoning
inconsistent with the contested statement. Therefore, the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of lack of
enablement. In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677, 185 USPQ
152, 153 (CCPA 1975). This rejection is reversed.
In rejecting claims 1, 2 and 4 through 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the examiner begins with Austin's disclosure of an
oxide remover solution and the application of that solution to
a metal surface to be cleaned. According to the examiner, the
oxide remover solution is an aqueous acidic solution
preferably containing citric acid and a nonionic surfactant.
As stated by the examiner, the difference between Austin's
method and the claimed method is that Austin does not disclose
a hydroxy-carboxylic acid salt (e.g., sodium citrate) or
sodium xylene sulfonate in the oxide remover solution. Nor
does Austin disclose a nonionic surfactant "having an HLB of
about 3 to
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007