Appeal No. 1998-1154
Application No. 08/304,960
According to appellants, the invention is directed to a
method of protecting aluminum substrates from corrosion by
implanting a specified ion into aluminum or an aluminum alloy
in the presence of molecular oxygen (Brief, page 2). A copy
of illustrative independent claim 1 is attached as an Appendix
to this decision.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Yonezawa et al. (Yonezawa) 4,433,004 Feb. 21,
1984
Armini et al. (Armini) 5,383,934 Jan. 24,
1995
(filed Sep. 13, 1993)
Natishan et al. (Natishan), “Surface Charge Considerations in
the Pitting of Ion-Implanted Aluminum,” J. Electrochem. Soc.,
pp. 321-327 (1988).
Claims 1, 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Yonezawa or Natishan in view of Armini
(Answer, page 3). We reverse all of the examiner’s rejections
on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in appellants’
Brief, Substitute Reply Brief (dated Apr. 7, 1997, Paper No.
19), and the reasons below.
OPINION
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007