Appeal No. 2005-1099
Application No. 09/334,974
nickel layer, that is then coated with a layer comprised of
chrome.
Appellants state that the combination of references does
not teach this sequential layering. We agree. We note that on
page 39 of the answer, the examiner rebuts and states that Pudem
teaches “a first copper plating step is performed and
thereafter, to form a brass finish, nickel and then chrome are
plated and refers to column 10 lines 1-19.” Our review of Pudem
in this regard reveals otherwise. That is, in column 10 at
lines 1-20, Pudem deposits a copper layer, that is then
electroplated with a nickel layer, that is then electroplated
with a brass layer, that is then coated with a chrome layer.
Therefore the layering is different in Pudem.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the rejection of
claims 10-20 as being obvious over Wilty in view of Eichholzer
and further in view Pudem.
IV. Conclusion
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9,
21-23, 26-28, and 65-67 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious
over Moysan in view of Eichholzer is affirmed.
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 is affirmed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10-20 as being
obvious over Welty in view of Eichholzer and further in view of
Pudem is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007