Appeal No. 2005-1099
Application No. 09/334,974
for about 24 minutes. See column 6, lines 4-6. So, contrary to
appellants’ assertion, Moysan teaches other kinds of cleaning
steps. Meanwhile, Eichholzer teaches, for an electrode plating
process, that a cleaning method, using high frequency pulsating
jets of compressed air, is beneficial because (1) no drops or
traces of drops remain on the dried objects, and (2) the
electrolytes from the electrolyte bath are recovered. Hence, as
stated by the examiner, there is motivation in the applied
references to modify Moysan by using the cleaning method taught
in Eichholzer. We specifically refer to the examiner’s
statements made on pages 19-20 of the answer in this regard.
Appellants also argue that the method employed in
Eichholzer does not clean the surface, but rather pushes the
liquid electrolytes off the surface. We disagree. As pointed
out by the examiner, beginning on page 22 of the answer,
Eichholzer discloses that the process is “for the drying of the
objects” and provides “spot free dryness.” The examiner also
points out that Eichholzer discloses “a one time passage of the
nozzle device along the objects is generally sufficient to dry
them completely.” Hence, we agree with the examiner, that
Eichholzer method does clean the surface. Appellants’ same
method cleans the surface; hence, so does Eichholzer’s same
method clean the surface.
With respect to claim 7, appellants argue that Moysan
does not teach the deposition of layer 24 by physical vapor
deposition. We disagree. We refer to page 24 of the answer
regarding the examiner’s statements. Also, Moysan teaches in
column 4, lines 23-27, that techniques such as vacuum coating or
physical vapor deposition, such as ion sputtering and the like,
are used. In column 4, beginning at lines 63, Moysan states
that reactive ion sputter is generally similar to ion sputter
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007