Appeal No. 2001-2349
Application No. 09/237,895
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 3) that claim 24 is
clearly anticipated by Stimson. The examiner relies on the
inclusion of antimony in "metal coating 29" (see column 2,
line 50) to meet the claim limitation of "a metallic layer
consisting essentially of at least one selected from the group
consisting of Zn, Sn, Pb, Rh, Pd, Pt, Cu, Au, Sb and Ag, and a Ni
alloy comprising at least one of B and P."
Appellants point out (Brief, page 5) that Stimson's surface
layer 29 is formed of antimony and silicon. Appellants contend
(Brief, page 6, and Reply Brief, page 2) that the silicon
materially affects the basic and novel characteristics of the
claimed metallic layer, in that the combination of antimony and
silicon forms a metal silicide. Accordingly, appellants conclude
that Stimson's layer does not consist essentially of antimony, as
required by claim 24.
We agree with appellants' position. Stimson's layer 29 has
equal amounts of antimony and silicon (see the table of Stimson's
column 3). Thus, antimony is not the majority component. Also,
as indicated by appellants, the two materials would form a metal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007