Appeal No. 1998-2948
Application 08/400,861
This argument attacks the secondary references and does
not address the rejection which would have an anodic oxidation
film over an aluminum/rare earth element alloy. One cannot
show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually
where the rejection is based on a combination of references.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA
1981).
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in stating that
the applied prior art suggests the present invention because
none of the references teach not to anodically oxidize an
aluminum alloy containing a rare earth element (RBr8). It is
argued that the prior art must suggest anodic oxidizing an
aluminum film containing a rare earth element (RBr9).
The Examiner actually stated that "contrary to
Appellants' assertion, none of the references of record teach
not to anodically oxidize an aluminum alloy containing a rare
earth element" (EA7). The purpose of the statement was not
that anodic oxidation would have been suggested, but to rebut
Appellants' arguments, such as the argument that secondary
references do not teach anodic oxidation and "[t]he art thus
clearly and distinctly separates what can and cannot be added
- 19 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007