Appeal No. 1997-0330
Application 08/493,758
' 103 as being obvious over Kirman.
I. Examiner's rejection.
The rejection of claims 1 and 3 is presented under
alternative grounds of anticipation under '102 and
obviousness under '103. To reach the merits of each
ground, we will treat them separately.
Anticipation of Claim 1
Representative claim 1 is directed to an electrolyte
composition comprising three components:
tin salts;
surfactants; and,
additives yielding fluoride ions.
There is no dispute that each of these three components
are identically taught in Kirman: col. 5, lines 43-45;
col. 5, line 56; and, col. 5, lines 30-42, respectively.
The issue is whether Kirman identically teaches the
remaining limitation in representative claim 1: that the
fluoride ion-yielding additives of the electrolyte
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007