Appeal No. 2005-0898
Application No. 10/047,527
Laver and Nakae. Claims 5, 6, 13-15 and 18 also stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chasser in
view of Laver and Nakae.1
In accordance with the grouping of claims set forth at
page 6 of appellants' brief, the following groups of claims stand
or fall together:
(I) claims 5, 6, 13, 14 and 18;
(II) claims 7 and 9; and
(III) claim 15.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejections for the reasons set forth in
the Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following
for emphasis only.
There is no dispute that the primary references, Geary and
Chasser, disclose, like appellants, aluminum substrates having a
coating of the presently claimed (a) polymer containing
1 The examiner has withdrawn the final rejections under
35 U.S.C. § 112 and 35 U.S.C. § 102.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007