Appeal No. 2000-1835
Application No. 08/868,092 Page 6
paragraph bridging pages 6 and 7. Appellants’ contentions to the
contrary (brief, page 8) are not persuasive since both Pendleton
and Florio employ the carbonaceous material as a coating prior to
electroplating and after preparing the substrate surfaces for the
carbonaceous coating.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner’s § 103 rejection
of claims 13, 20, 21 and 23.
Our disposition of the examiner’s § 103 rejection of
dependent claims 14-16 is another matter. Claims 14 and 15
require particular pH conditions for the acid aqueous solution
and claims 16 and 22 require hydroxyl ammonium nitrate as a
reducing agent. The examiner’s predicate for the § 103 rejection
of claims 14 and 15 is that “it appears that pH is a result
effective variable” (answer, page 6). Such a supposition does
not take the place of evidence. While we recognize, as discussed
above, that Pendleton may use an acid to adjust pH, the examiner
has not established where Pendleton together with the other
applied references would have suggested the particularly claimed
pH values for the treating solution of Pendleton. With regard to
claims 16 and 22, we note that the examiner relies on Growald to
suggest the use of a hydroxyl ammonium nitrate salt as the
reducing agent in Pendleton, specifically referring to column 3,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007