Appeal No. 2000-0558 Page 6
Application No. 08/912,585
to reduce electrostatic buildup (final rejection, page 2) and
to use chromate treatment (which is well known) to form the
conductive film/coating of Hakanson (answer, page 4).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established when the teachings of the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject
matter to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Bell,
991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993). If
the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the
rejection is improper and will be overturned. See In re Fine,
837 F.2d 1071, 1076, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1600 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The appellant argues that Hakanson teaches only
"electrically conductive organic coatings"... a coating of
organic material is not formed by chromate treatment of
aluminum as recited in claim 2 (reply brief, page 2).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007