Appeal No. 2004-0759
Application No. 09/363,038 Page 7
e.g., column 3, lines 47-58 of Oshima. One of ordinary skill in
the art would have desired to omit the optional equipment because
doing so would reduce the cost of the apparatus. See In re
Thompson, 545 F.2d 1290, 1294, 192 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1976);
In re Clinton, 527 F.2d 1226, 1229, 188 USPQ 365, 367 (CCPA
1976).
Concerning dependent claim 15, appellant maintains that
Oshima does not teach the use of a continuous feed device as
required. We disagree because Oshima (column 2, lines 60-68
and column 3, lines 47-58) expressly states that providing a
continuous plating line operation is an object of their disclosed
apparatus and consequently the illustrated feed rollers depicted
in figure 1 of Oshima would have been understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art as being constructed for continuous
operation. Concerning claim 16, the recited rinse tank reads on
the tank (10, fig. 1) and/or pretreatment tank (13, fig. 1) of
Oshima. Appellant’s argument concerning the immediateness of the
downstream location of the equipment is not found persuasive for
reasons discussed above and in the answer. With regard to
dependent claim 17 and the recited pickling acid limitation, we
note that appellant’s counsel withdrew that argument at the oral
hearing when questioned as to why some of the tank acids
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007