Appeal No. 1997-0330
Application 08/493,758
Kirman does not place any restrictions on the
fluoride concentration. Therefore, although Kirman does
not expressly recite a fluoride complex concentration in
excess of its "solubility product", given that this is an
amount of fluoride in excess of what is needed and that
Kirman suggests using any amount, it reasonably suggests
to one of ordinary skill in this art to employ a fluoride
complex in Kirman's electrolyte bath at any
concentration, including that claimed, in order to
achieve similar tin-plating results. There is therefore
a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed
invention over Kirman's disclosed electrolyte.
Having established a prima facie case of
obviousness, the burden now shifts to appellants to come
forward with objective evidence to rebut the prima facie
case. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 706, 222 USPQ
191, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1984), citing In re Rinehart, 531
F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
In order for a showing of "unexpected results" to be
probative evidence of non-obviousness, it falls upon
the applicant to at least establish: (1) that there
actually is a difference between the results obtained
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007