Appeal 2006-2603
Application 10/270,486
through an electrolyte that has been applied to the substrate. The admitted
prior art and Konuma do not teach compensating for the ohmic voltage drop
that results from the flow of current through the electrolyte. However, the
Electrochemistry Dictionary-I and Galwey evidence that it was known in the
art to employ IR compensation, or compensation for voltage drop, that
occurs across the solution of an electrochemical cell. Galwey expressly
teaches that the distortion caused by the voltage drop across the solution can
be appreciable and preclude any meaningful interpretation of the data to the
extent that the actual driving potential would be masked by the unknown
voltage drop(col. 3, ll. 38-44). Accordingly, we are confident that one of
ordinary skill in the art, armed with this knowledge, would have found it
obvious to compensate for the voltage drop across the electrolyte of
electrochemical cells, in general, including those of the type claimed and
disclosed by Konuma for forming an anodized film on a substrate.
Appellants have advanced no argument why one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have applied the known knowledge regarding compensating for
voltage drop across an electrolyte solution to the known process for forming
an anodized film.
Also, while appellants emphasize that the Examiner has cited no
references teaching the compensation of a voltage drop in a process for
anodizing a substrate, which is an old process, we are satisfied that any non-
uniformity of the anodized coating attributed to the voltage drop across the
electrolyte would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the
art, particularly since voltage drop across an electrolyte was known in the
art. In re Ludwig, 353 F.2d 241, 244, 147 USPQ 420, 421 (CCPA 1965).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007