Appeal No. 2003-1980
Application No. 09/351,868
treatment is equivalent to the claimed layer, and that the idle
running contact roller is equivalent to the substrate of the
appealed claims. (Examiner’s Answer, page 6, lines 5-15).
The appellants, on the other hand, again maintain that the
metal pieces of Wahlbeck are not covered by the instant claims,
that Wahlbeck has no relevance to the instant claims, and that
there is no teaching that Wahlbeck operates as the instant claims
recite. (Appeal Brief, page 5, lines 12-24).
Again, we agree with the appellants. Wahlbeck discloses
annealing metal jewelry in deionized water (column 7, lines 19-21
and 55-57). However, we find that the wire, resting on the
running contact roller, is not equivalent to, and does not teach,
the claimed metal layer plated on a workpiece having an insulating
substrate. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
C. The Rejection of Claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Allain or Wahlbeck in view of Foreman.
The examiner has found that Foreman teaches the use of
propylene glycol in a metal treating fluid. Thus, the examiner
concludes, it would have been obvious to use a cleaning and
annealing fluid of propylene glycol in the Allain or Wahlbeck
processes. (Examiner’s Answer, page 7, lines 6-10).
The appellants urge, again, that Allain and Wahlbeck are
inapplicable. (Appeal Brief, page 6, lines 15-17).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007