Appeal No. 2005-2573
Application 09/899,591
Mosier as applied above, and further in view of Berdan et al. (final action, pages 9-10); and
appealed claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arrowsmith ‘752 in view
of Arrowsmith, Shepard, Beckett, Schneeberger and Mosier as applied above, and further in
view of Frantzen et al. (final action, page 10).2
We refer to the answer and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition of the
positions advanced by the examiner and appellants.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether one of ordinary skill in this art would have
found in the combined teachings of the applied prior art, particularly the combined teachings of
Arrowsmith ‘752, Arrowsmith, Schneeberger and Mosier, teachings and inferences which would
have led this person to seal the hard anodic layer produced by hard anodizing of aluminum
taught by Arrowsmith ‘752 (e.g., col. 1, l. 59, to col. 2, l. 15, col. 2, l. 55, to col. 3, l. 35, col. 3,
ll. 52-57, and col. 4, ll. 15-51) and Arrowsmith (e.g., page 68, “anodizing and post-anodizing
treatment”) with the sealing methods taught in Schneeberger (e.g., col. 1, ll. 33-54, col. 2,
ll. 16-41; and col. 3, ll. 17-35) and Mosier (e.g., col. 3, ll. 22-27, col. 5, ll. 31-40, and col. 5, l.
66, to col. 6, l. 13) for half-hard anodic layers produced by the processes disclosed in these
references.3
Appellants contends that the hard anodizing step used by Arrowsmith ‘752 produces “an
anodic layer which is environmentally stable and unaffected by the presence of water,” and the
anodizing step is followed by an etching step, and that Arrowsmith also teaches that hard
anodizing is followed by an etching step; and that Schneeberger “discloses sealing an anodic
layer of an environmentally unstable soft-anodizing aluminum part (which is naturally porous) to
protect against corrosion” and “seals a very specific type of anodic layer – a soft-anodic layer
which is known to be environmentally unstable and prone to corrosion” (brief, pages 6-9;
original emphasis deleted). Appellants submit that “there is no reason to seal the hard anodized
2 Appealed claims 1, 3, 4, 6 through 10, 13 through 17, 20, 22, 23, 26 through 28 and 30 through
32 are all of the claims in the application. See the appendix to the brief.
3 It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw
therefrom, see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968), presuming skill on
the part of this person. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007