Appeal No. 2003-0292 Page 12
Application No. 09/584,032
Frankfort, Examiner-in-Chief, concurring -- with additional views.
I share my colleagues' views regarding the outcome of this appeal and the
reversal of the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10 and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) wherein the examiner has relied upon Louis in view of Babecki, and also the
rejection of claims 2, 9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) where the examiner has relied
upon Louis in view of Babecki and Lienert. However, I am of the view that the examiner
should also consider a rejection of the claims on appeal, particularly claims 1, 7, 15, 16
and 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Babecki in view of Louis.
The only difference I perceive between the method as described in Babecki and
that set forth in claims 1, 7, 15, 16 and 20 on appeal is that Babecki does not
specifically indicate that the peening particles used therein have “an outer surface
including a sacrificial metal coating selected to provide sacrificial metal corrosion
resistance to said component [i.e., the component being treated],” as set forth in
independent claims 1 and 16 on appeal. Babecki teaches using suitable peening
particles including metal shot, ceramic beads and the like (col. 3, lines 40-43) to achieve
coating or plating of a metal or polymethacrylate substrate confined in a cabinet or work
chamber (col. 5, lines 10-11) and teaches the use of a sacrificial metal such as zinc as a
metallic coating material (col. 3, lines 54-59). However, Babecki does not expressly
disclose that the peening particles are coated with the metallic powder (e.g., zinc) prior
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007