Appeal 2006-2987
Application 10/661,651
any “adverse metallurgical affect on the structure being inspected” further
does not negate the teaching of using strong acid to remove metal by
chemical milling. That there is no “adverse metallurgical affect” simply
means there are no adverse changes in the metallurgy, i.e., the properties and
morphology, of the metal alloy.
Because the Examiner established, by a preponderance of the
evidence, a reason, suggestion, or motivation originating from within the
prior art for combining the teachings of the applied references, we conclude
that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness that has
not been sufficiently rebutted by Appellants. Appellants have not convinced
us of any reversible error by the Examiner with regard to the rejection of
claim 2 and claims 3, 4, and 11-13 falling therewith.
C. The Rejection of Claims 5-7 and 14-17
The Examiner rejected claims 5-7 and 14-17 over APA or Lowe in
view of Walker, Fishter, and Blake.
1. Claim 5
Claim 5 is the broadest of the rejected claims and involves applying a
maskant to a blade prior to immersion in the treating solution so that the
blade is not treated. The Examiner relies on Blake to show that it was
known in the chemical etching art to use masks to protect regions of a metal
part from etching solutions.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has failed to allege a proper
motivation for combining the teachings of Blake with the teachings of the
other references (Br. 9-10). The issue, again, is: Has the Examiner
established, by a preponderance of the evidence, a reason, suggestion, or
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013