Appeal No. 2005-2573
Application 09/899,591
aluminum of Arrowsmith[‘752] because the anodic layer of that aluminum . . . is superior to
previous anodizing techniques (such as that in Schneeberger), and is immediately
environmentally stable after hard anodizing,” and that the thick anodic layer of Arrowsmith ‘752
is “not known to requires a sealing layer to protect against corrosion and hydration (brief, pages
9-10; original emphasis deleted).
The examiner acknowledges that “the anodized surfaces of Arrowsmith are corrosion
resistant” and finds that “so are the anodized surfaces of Schneeberger,” citing col. 1, ll. 11-16,
pointing out that “[t]he primary purpose of the sealant in Schneeberger is to provide
improvement in corrosion resistance and to trap colorant in the pores” (answer, page 3; original
emphasis deleted). The examiner contends that that “there is no evidentiary support” for
appellants’ suggestion “that the anodized layer of Schneeberger is a different ‘soft’ anodized
aluminum,” finding that “[i]n fact, both anodic layers are formed in sulfuric acid . . . to the same
thickness (20 µm) under very similar conditions (time, temperature and current density). See the
Arrowsmith publication section entitled ‘Experimental Procedure’ and Schneeberger (Col. 3,
Lines 17-30)” (answer, page 3).
Appellants reply that the teachings in “Arrowsmith provides that the anodic layer alone is
a complete product that needs no further process; it is completely stable by itself – not merely
‘resistant’ to corrosion,” pointing out that “Schneeberger clearly states that its anodic later
improves corrosion resistance, . . . does ‘not offer sufficient corrosion protection’ and that the
anodic layer ‘has to be sealed’ . . . [and] is unstable,” requiring additional processing to become
environmentally stable” (reply brief, pages 1-2). Appellants further contend that the anodizing
conditions of Arrowsmith and Schneeberger are dissimilar, presenting a table showing
differences in temperature, time and current density based on “Arrowsmith ‘Experimental
Procedure’ and Schneeberger, Col. 3, Lns. 17-30” (reply brief, page 2). On this basis, appellants
submit that “there is no motivation to attempt to modify the already complete and stable
Arrowsmith anodic layer with the sealing process of Schneeberger, which is designed
specifically for different, inferior anodic layers” (id.).
On this record, we agree with appellants’ position supported by the disclosures of the
Arrowsmith references and Schneeberger. We further find that the anodizing conditions taught
by Mosier for “[a] typical anodizing procedure” at col. 5, ll. 31-37, are closely aligned with the
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007