Appeal No. 2005-0789
Application No. 10/410,000
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 7-11 as being
obvious over Bickford in view of Watson
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
page 6 of the answer. Appellants respond to this rejection on
pages 6-7 of the brief. Appellants argue again that Bickford
does not provide a plating solution containing up to about 0.4M
of supporting electrolyte. Essentially, appellants argue that
the combination of Bickford and Watson does not provide all the
limitations of claim 1 and therefore the combination does not
provide all the limitations of claims 7-11.
However, for the same reasons that we affirmed the
anticipation rejection claim 1 as being anticipated by Bickford,
or as being obvious over Watson, we affirm this rejection.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection of claims 7-
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Bickford in view
of Watson.
V. Conclusion
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 12, 14,
20, 21, and 23-26 as being anticipated by Bickford is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over Watson is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Bickford or Watson in view of Haydu is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over Bickford in view of Watson is affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007