Appeal No. 2004-0759
Application No. 09/363,038 Page 6
construction consistent therewith, it is clear that appealed
claim 14 is not so narrow in scope as to preclude the presence of
other treating equipment between the pickling tank and the
electro-coating tank as argued.
Furthermore, as pointed out by the examiner in the answer in
considerable detail, Oshima teaches that the location of the
post-galvanizing treating (pickling) tank (9, fig. 1) is not
critical and the location of a skin pass rolling mill (11) and
leveller (12) between the tank (9) and electroplating tank (14)
is disclosed as optional in the patent. See, e.g., column 5,
lines 1-18 and column 6, lines 43 and 44 of Oshima.
Furthermore, the pretreatment tank (13) and tank (10) are washing
facilities which are not precluded by the appealed claim 14
language for reasons discussed above. Alternatively, it would
have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to eliminate those washing facilities together with the optional
rolling mill (11), leveller (12) and associated bridle rolls (19)
of Oshima, as desired, to avoid the additional expense associated
with such processing because Oshima makes manifest that the only
essential equipment that is required downstream of the
galvanizing apparatus is the surface treatment apparatus (tank 9,
fig. 1) and the electroplating apparatus (tank 14, fig. 1). See,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007