Appeal No. 96-1228
Application 08/127,480
in the plating art (FR3); it would be the examiner's burden
to provide evidence if appellants had traversed the
examiner's finding. We are also not convinced that
"eutectoid plating" is the kind of notoriously well-known
fact that is susceptible to taking of Official Notice.
However, the examiner made a finding that "eutectoid
plating" was a known alternative to those of ordinary skill
in the art and since we have no arguments to the contrary,
we feel constrained to sustain the rejection of claim 3.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-3 is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007