Appeal No. 2001-1820
Application No. 09/169,280
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Philipp (Answer, page 3). Claims 1, 3, 7,
8, 17, 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Blohowiak in view of Philipp (Answer, page 4) and also under the
judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 1-7 of Blohowiak in view of Philipp (Answer, page 7).
We affirm all of the examiner’s rejections on appeal
essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer and those
reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 103(a) over Philipp
The examiner finds that Philipp teaches a method of
producing a zirconium (Zr)- silicon (Si) sol-gel coating on metal
substrates such as aluminum and titanium, which uses a mixture of
alkoxyzirconium compounds, a pigment as a colorant, acetic acid
as a condensation catalyst, and an organosilane coupling agent
(Answer, page 3). The examiner further finds that Philipp
teaches specific examples of tetra-ethyl orthosilicate (TEOS)
which is applied to a primed (cleaned and activated) substrate,
and subsequently dried by heating (id.).
The examiner finds that Philipp fails to disclose or teach
some of the claimed functional language, e.g., the orientation of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007