Appeal No. 2004-0759
Application No. 09/363,038 Page 8
disclosed by Oshima would not meet that limitation.1 With
respect to claim 22, Oshima describes an electroplating tank,
which would have fairly suggested the use of an anode as part of
such a structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.2
Consequently, appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. It
follows that we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
14-16, 22 and 23.
Rejection of claims 17, 18 and 24-27
Each of claims 17, 18 and 24-27 require conduits connecting
the electro-coating tank and the pickling tank directly or via a
metal dissolving tank. The examiner has not fairly explained how
the teachings of Ishibashi with respect to an electrolyzer that
is disclosed as being useful for treating spent pickling liquor
would have suggested conduit connection(s) between the
electroplating tank (14) and surface treatment (pickling) tank
(9) of Oshima. In this regard, the electrolyzer of Ishibashi as
used in treating spent pickling liquor for recirculation to the
1 See column 6, lines 17-21 of Oshima. We further observe
that Ishibashi discloses hydrofluoric acid, one of Oshima’s
described acids, as a pickling liquor component.
2 See, e.g., Kirk-Othmer, Encyclopedia of Chemical
Technology, 3rd Ed., Vol. 8, p. 833 (copy attached).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007