Appeal No. 96-1228
Application 08/127,480
Claim 3 stands rejected on the basis that eutectoid
plating would have been within the skill of a worker in
the art as a coating expedient (Office Action dated
11/01/94, Paper No. 15, paragraph 2; Final Rejection,
Paper No. 17, paragraph 2). There is no evidence of
record challenging this assertion. Thus, there is no
patentable novelty to eutectoid plating as a method for
forming a fluorine-containing coating. 37 CFR 1.111
and 1.106(c), MPEP 706.02(a).
Appellants do not respond in the Reply Brief, evidently
because this was not considered to raise a new argument.
The examiner made a finding that a "eutectoid plating"
was an expedient known to those of ordinary skill in the
art; i.e., the examiner took "Official Notice." It is
proper for an examiner to make a finding of "well known"
prior art if the knowledge is of such notorious character
that Official Notice can be taken. Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure § 706.02(a) (5th ed., Rev. 14,
Nov. 1992), now in § 2144.03 (6th ed., Rev. 3, July 1997).
It takes very little on the part of an applicant to traverse
such a finding. Applicant need merely deny the assertion or
state that the applicant is without knowledge that the fact
is well known. We do not agree with the examiner's
requirement that appellants provide evidence that eutectoid
plating is not an expedient within the skill of the worker
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007