Appeal No. 1996-2086
Application 08/255,588
limitations of appellant’s claim 1. Consequently, I would affirm the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Because anticipation is the epitome of obviousness, see In re
Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 950, 186 USPQ 80, 83 (CCPA 1975); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d
1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974), I would affirm the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103. Moreover, even if using tin or zinc as the gettering material in Fuller’s
method were considered to involve a choice, Fuller would have fairly suggested, to one of
ordinary skill in the art, use of any of the five disclosed metals, including tin and zinc. Thus,
use of tin and zinc would have been prima facie obvious to such a person.
Appellant argues that Fuller’s immersion in molten gettering material appears to be
a solvent extraction method rather than appellant’s coating method (brief, page 3). Fuller
discloses an example in which solvent extraction is used (col. 6, lines 5-11). However, in
the portion in which Fuller discusses coatings, he discloses that a coating is formed by
dipping the substrate in a molten bath, and discloses that the coated substrate then is
heated (col. 2, lines 53-54 and 66-70). This disclosure, particularly when read in light of
the teaching that electroplating and thermal deposition are alternative coating methods
(col. 2, lines 53-55), indicates that the dipping in a molten metal bath is a coating method
rather than a solvent extraction method.
13
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007