Appeal No. 2000-1582
Application 08/697,034
brief.1,2
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Shanok et al. (Shanok) 3,590,769 Jul. 6,
1997
Buettner er al. (Buettner) 4,225,167 Sep. 30,
1980
Demastro et al (Delmastro) 4,466,646 Aug. 21,
1984
Placek 4,569,865 Feb. 11,
1986
Fleming 5,067,759 Nov. 26,
1991
Matthysse et al. (Matthysse) 5,131,702 Jul.
21, 1992
Hagiwara (Japanese Kokai) 55-110639 Aug. 26,
19803
The appealed claims stand finally rejected on the
1 All references herein to appellant’s brief are to the
revised brief filed on October 12, 1999.
2 In reviewing the application, we note that in the
specification on page 4, lines 15 to 21, it is stated that
should the chrome plating on series 304 stainless steel
fracture, corrosion “simply does not form” under the fractured
chrome plating. On the other hand, at page 10, lines 6 to 8,
appellant states that “Chrome plating is applied on the No. 8
finish of series 304 stainless steel to prevent corrosion from
propagating therethrough.” These apparently contradictory
statements should be reconciled during any further
prosecution.
3 A translation of this reference, prepared by the PTO, is
forwarded to appellant herewith.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007