Appeal 2006-3193
Application 10/772,595
7) The additives used in Passal’s process include one or more
brighteners (Passal, col. 2, ll. 36-47). According to Passal, the “best
results are obtained when primary brighteners are used with either a
secondary brightener, a secondary auxiliary brightener, or both in order
to provide optimum deposit luster, rate of brightening, leveling, . . .,
etc.” (Passal, col. 3, ll. 27-31).
8) Passal discloses that primary brighteners include acetylenics
(Passal, col. 3, ll. 3-5). According to Passal “[a]mong the secondary
auxiliary brighteners one may also include ions or compounds of certain
metals and metalloids such as zinc . . . to augment deposit luster”
(Passal, col. 4, ll. 23-27).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Issue I: Do JP ‘693 and Passal inherently disclose quaternary
Ni-Co alloys?
In order to make a proper comparison between the claimed invention
and the prior art, the Examiner must first construe the language of the
claims. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674
During prosecution claims are given their broadest reasonable construction
“in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary
skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364,
70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants maintain that the claims should be construed as excluding
contaminants and boric acid as sources for the ionic metal alloys used to
form a quaternary alloy on the cathode. However, we see no basis in the
claims or Specification (see Findings of Fact 1-3) for such a narrow claim
construction. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the Examiner’s
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013