Appeal No. 2003-0210
Application 03/237,574
the examiner has not established any such known uses included
coating uranium.
The examiner argues that the appellants’ specification at
page 2, lines 3-6 indicates that addition of 1% aluminum to a
copper-tin bath to facilitate coating a uranium article was known
prior to the appellants’ effective filing date (answer, page 10).
This portion of the appellants’ specification states: “In the
early application of bronze coatings to uranium, it was found
that the addition of about 1% of aluminum or 1.2% to 5% of nickel
was advantageous for improving the continuity of the resulting
coatings.” When this statement is read in the context in which
it appears, it is clear that it refers to the early application
of bronze coatings to uranium by the appellants, not by others
before the appellants.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness of the invention
claimed in the appellants’ claims 1-3, 10, 11 and 13-15.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007