Appeal No. 1996-0200
Application 08/119,444
It is the examiner’s position that the only difference between the teachings of Arai
and Chen is that the specific purity of the aluminum is not disclosed (page 12 of the
answer). To obviate this deficiency, the examiner relies upon Bajza. It is the examiner’s
position that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute
the aluminum substrates of Bajza for those in Arai with the expectation that the use of the
purer aluminum substrate would result in a thicker anodic coating. However, as noted
supra, there are additional differences between the teachings of Arai and those claimed,
differences which are not overcome by Chen and are not overcome by the use of a purer
aluminum substrate of Bajza. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection
Reversed
MARY F. DOWNEY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
WILLIAM F. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
14
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007