Appeal No. 2000-1835
Application No. 08/868,092 Page 7
lines 30 and 31 thereof at page 5 of the answer. However, the
examiner has not fairly explained how the teachings of Growald
with respect to a nitrate anion for a compound used to form
electroconductive polymer for an electrically conductive plastic
sheet would have suggested a hydroxyl ammonium nitrate salt as a
reducing agent in Pendleton.
Consequently, we shall reverse the examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 14-16 and 22.
§ 103 Rejection Over Pendleton, Hou and Toro
Regarding dependent claim 18, the examiner relies on Toro in
addition to Pendleton to suggest the use of sulfonic acid as the
pH adjustor to be used in Pendleton. According to the examiner
(answer, page 8), one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led to select sulfonic acid as an alternative to the
hydrochloric acid mentioned by Pendleton for adjusting pH of the
solution. This is so since Toro teaches that both of those acids
are alternatives and each are useful in combination with reducing
agents in treating substrates prior to treating with a
carbonaceous dispersion. Appellants’ arguments (brief, page 9)
are directed to Toro, as if applied alone by the examiner,
whereas the examiner relies on the combined teachings of
Pendleton and Toro. It follows that such arguments by counsel
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007