Appeal 2006-2603
Application 10/270,486
(n) claim 8 over Konuma in view of Keigler, Galwey,
Electrochemistry Dictionary-I, and Duenas,
(o) claim 15 over Konuma in view of Keigler, Galwey,
Electrochemistry Dictionary-I, and Yamagata,
(p) claims 19-21, and 63 over Konuma in view of Keigler, Galwey,
Electrochemistry Dictionary-I and the admitted prior art,
(q) claims 25-27, and 61 over Konuma in view of Keigler, Galwey,
Electrochemistry Dictionary-I and Higashi, and
(r) claims 28, 29, and 62 over Konuma in view of Keigler, Galwey,
Electrochemistry Dictionary-I, and Chan.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellants' arguments for
patentability. However, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed
submitted 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 rejections to the extent they are based on
Galwey and the Electrochemistry Dictionary-I.1
Appellants do not set forth arguments that are reasonably specific to
any particular claim on appeal. Rather, Appellants lodge the same
substantive arguments against all the various rejections. Accordingly, all the
appealed claims stand or fall together.
As evidenced by the admitted prior art found in the Appellants'
specification and Konuma, it was known in the art to employ a single-step
process for forming an anodized film on a substrate by flowing current
1 The § 103 rejections not including Galwey and the Electrochemistry
Dictionary-I are subsumed by the rejections that do include these references,
as stated in the new grounds of rejection in the Examiner's Answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007