Appeal No. 2006-0264
Application No. 10/217,064
(a) claims 1-5, 7 and 9-13 over van der Putten in view of
Araki;
(b) claim 6 over van der Putten in view of Araki and Zirino;
(c) claim 8 over van der Putten in view of Araki and Fakler;
and
(d) claim 16 over van der Putten in view of Araki and
Yamakawa.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we agree with
appellants that the examiner's § 112, second paragraph rejection
is not sustainable. However, we fully concur with the examiner
that the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of § 103 in view of
the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will sustain the
examiner's § 103 rejections for the reasons set forth in the
Answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the following for
emphasis only.
We consider first the examiner's rejection of claim 10 under
§ 112, second paragraph. The examiner considers indefinite the
claim 10 language that the regenerating "solutions are added to
decouple a quantitative regulation of the process-bath lead
concentration from a quantitative regulation of remaining
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007