Appeal No. 2004-2027
Application No. 09/670,189
Chang ’642 with a reasonable expectation of success and
with the expectation of similar results because Speirs
’806 teaches that energizers comprising aluminum
chloride are also known as energizers in aluminum pack
diffusion processes.
We cannot agree with the examiner’s conclusion for the
reasons stated in the reply brief at 14-15.4
In summary, we reverse the examiner’s rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) of: (i) claims 1, 2, and 4 through 11 as
unpatentable over Warnes in view of Basta ’963 and Smith; (ii)
claims 3 and 12 through 20 as unpatentable over Warnes in view of
Basta ’963, Smith, and Basta ’614; and (iii) claims 1, 3, 5
through 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, and 20 as unpatentable over
Chang in view of Speirs and Bornstein.
4 The examiner states “Bornstein...is extraneous to the
rejection.” (Answer at 14.) Accordingly, we see no reason to
discuss this reference.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007