Appeal No. 2002-0932
Application No. 09/510,533
growth” (e.g., see claim 2 and the specification, page 6, ll. 3-
7). However, it appears that appellants’ admitted prior art,
i.e., conventional polypropylene apparatus, meets these claimed
limitations (specification, page 4, ll. 3-16; page 9, ll. 4-10;
and Experiment 2 on page 11). With appellants’ PVDF bolts, no
abnormal nodules are observed (Figure 3; specification, pages 10-
11). With “older” polypropylene fixtures, abnormal nodule growth
is observed (Figures 5 and 6; specification, pages 11-12). With
“relatively new” polypropylene fixtures (less than about six
months plating usage), no abnormal nodule growth is observed,
only “small and fine nodules” (Figure 4; specification, page 11).
Accordingly, there is no evidence that “new” or “relatively new”
polypropylene fixtures would release the 10 ppm or more of
soluble, low molecular weight, carbon-containing species
necessary for abnormal nodule formation (specification, page 13,
ll. 5-15). Therefore the examiner should determine whether the
use of conventional polypropylene fixtures, at the point in time
when these fixtures are new, would meet the limitations of the
claims.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007