Appeal No. 2004-0759
Application No. 09/363,038 Page 9
pickling tank has not been established as an electroplating
device or equivalent. It follows that we will not sustain the
examiner’s second rejection on this record.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 14-16, 22 and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oshima is
affirmed. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 17, 18
and 24-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Oshima in view of Ishibashi is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Bradley R. Garris )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Thomas A. Waltz ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
Peter F. Kratz )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007