Appeal No. 2006-0340
Application No. 10/089,315
least the expectation of achieving a desirably applied coating"
(page 19 of Answer, second paragraph).
We are also not persuaded by appellant's argument that there
is no teaching in the article "of any specific coating other than
the use of a zinc aluminum wire containing 87% zinc and 13%
aluminum as set forth on pg. 877 of the article" (page 11 of
principal brief, third paragraph). We concur with the examiner,
however, that Hasui evidences the obviousness of optimizing the
amounts of zinc and aluminum in the coating based on the specific
application for the coating (see Hasui, at column 4, lines
15-25). Furthermore, it is well settled that when patentability
is predicated upon a change in a condition of the prior art, such
as a change in concentration or the like, the change must lead to
a new or unexpected result. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578,
16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,
456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case,
appellant has proffered no objective evidence of unexpected
results with respect to the concentration of zinc and aluminum in
the applied alloy, or with respect to any claimed feature.
We also agree with the examiner that the collective
teachings of Goldheim and Hatfield would have rendered obvious
the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the art.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007