Appeal No. 2001-0964
Application No. 09/069,442
The Section 103 Rejections
Concerning the Section 103 rejection of appealed independent
claim 1, we agree with the examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to formulate
an electroplating bath and thereby obtain an electrodeposit which
contain ingredients such as the here claimed iron, zirconium and
gold and which are free of cobalt, cadmium and nickel ions. This
is because Korbelak expressly teaches formulating an
electroplating bath (and consequently an electrodeposit) from a
listing of ingredients which includes iron, zirconium and gold
(as well as a citrate, and a weak acid; compare appealed
independent claim 4) as fully explained in the answer. Although
Korbelak discloses a large number of possible ingredient
formulations for his electroplating bath and does not highlight
the particular formulation here claimed, an obviousness
conclusion is appropriate because each of the formulations
embraced by patentee’s broad disclosure are generically taught as
being effective and because Section 103 does not require that the
here claimed formulation be taught by the prior art as preferred.
Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807-08,
10 USPQ2d 1843, 1846 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S.
975 (1989).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007