Appeal No. 1997-2097
Application No. 08/191,137
Upon review of the opposing arguments and evidence
advanced by the examiner in the answer and appellant in the
brief in support of their respective positions, we conclude
that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we 2
will not sustain the examiner's § 103 rejections for reasons
set forth in appellant's brief and as further discussed below.
Klingenmaier (pages 741 and 742) teaches that aluminum
engine pistons can be plated with iron in a manner such that
the deposited iron is optimally adhered with a desired degree
of hardness for wear resistance. Klingenmaier (page 745,
second column) discloses that high hardness is the most
important property of the deposited iron and may be obtained
using a ferrous chloride bath operated at specified
conditions. Klingenmaier teaches that the aluminum alloy is
first coated with zinc, followed by copper obtained from a
cyanide bath, then iron and finally tin with rinsing between
the coating steps (pages 743 and 744).
2We note that it is the examiner who bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness in
rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See In re Rijckaert,
9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Page 4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007