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 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007