Appeal No. 2005-1099
Application No. 09/334,974
the air further reduces the water droplets in size such that
they are blown away. In this way, the air atomizes the water
droplets on the surface of the article.
In view of the above, we therefore affirm the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 21-23, 26-28, and 65-67
as being obvious over Moysan in view of Eichholzer.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9,
21-24, 26-36, and 65-67 as being obvious over Welty in view
of Eichholzer
We consider claims 1, 7, 65, and 66 in this rejection.
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 8-15 of the answer. Appellants’ position for this
rejection is set forth on pages 9-10 of the brief, and
appellants also provide comments in the reply brief.
Appellants argue that Eichholzer is non-analogous art to
appellants’ invention and to Welty. For the same reasons,
discussed supra, in the aforementioned obviousness rejection, we
are not convinced by appellants’ argument, and we also refer to
the examiner’s position on pages 28-30 of the answer, in this
regard.
On page 10 of the brief, appellants argue that there is no
suggestion to modify Welty in the manner proposed by the
examiner. Appellants refer to column 8, lines 32-37 of Welty,
and state that Welty subjects the electroplated faucets to a
high-bias plasma cleaning. Appellants conclude that Welty does
not suggest any other cleaning method. Brief, page 11.
As discussed in the aforementioned obviousness rejection,
Eichholzer provides motivation to utilize the pulsating jets of
compressed air in an electroplating process, as a method of
cleaning. Eichholzer states that the method used to remove the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007