Appeal No. 2004-0759
Application No. 09/363,038 Page 3
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant in the briefs
and the examiner in the answer, including the rejection
incorporated therein. In so doing, we find ourselves in
agreement with the examiner with respect to the first stated
rejection. Thus, we affirm the § 103(a) rejection of claims
14-16, 22 and 23 as being obvious over Oshima for reasons as set
forth in the answer and further discussed below. However, we
reverse the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 17, 18 and
24-27. Our reasoning follows.
Rejection of claims 14-16, 22 and 23
Appellant maintains that each of the claims are separately
patentable. Accordingly, to the extent that separate arguments
have been presented and maintained for each of the rejected
claims consistent with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7 and 8)(2001), we shall
treat the claims separately.
Independent claim 14 is drawn to an apparatus that includes
at least a pickling tank and an electro-coating tank located
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007