Appeal No. 2006-0264
Application No. 10/217,064
that it is generally a matter of prima facie obviousness for one
of ordinary skill in the art to alter the order of addition of
ingredients to a processing bath or composition. See In re
Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 692, 69 USPQ 330, 332 (CCPA 1946). Araki
discloses the use of multiple regenerating solutions, and
appellants have not provided a convincing argument, let alone the
requisite objective evidence, that the particular order of adding
the regenerating components leads to an unexpected result. As
for decoupling the regulation of the lead concentration from the
regulation of the other bath components, we agree with the
examiner that Araki suggests as much by teaching that a plurality
of reservoirs may be used for the consumable components of the
processing bath. The use of separate reservoirs would allow for
the independent analysis and addition of separate components, and
appellants have pointed to no teaching in the prior art that
requires the regulation of the lead concentration to be coupled
to the regulation of the other bath components.
Concerning appellants' argument with respect to claim 2 that
"the Examiner has not provided any support" (page 6 of Brief,
fifth paragraph) for the assertion that the succinic acid of van
der Putten accelerates the deposition of the adhesion-promoting
layer, appellants have not addressed the examiner's citation of
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007