Appeal 2006-3193
Application 10/772,595
163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)(A reference disclosure must be evaluated
for all that it fairly teaches and not only for what is indicated as preferred).
Thus, in our view, the Examiner has convincingly established that one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been
motivated to have included an acetylenic brightener in the method of JP ‘693
in view of the advantages noted by Passal.
In traversing the Examiner’s rejections, Appellants argue that one of
ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to substitute the
quaternary ammonium salt brightener of JP ‘693 with the acetylenic
brightener of Passal. However, Appellants have not addressed the
Examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to use an acetylenic-brightener in the JP ‘693 electroplating
bath in addition to the disclosed quaternary ammonium salt brightener.1
In summary, we find that the Examiner has established a prima facie
showing of obviousness as to appealed claims 1-13 and 15-26. We further
find that Appellants have failed to present persuasive arguments or evidence
to overcome the Examiner’s § 103 rejections.
ORDER
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over JP ‘693 in view of Passal is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
JP ‘693 in view of Passal and Hui is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 9-12, 15-17, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over JP ‘693 in view of Passal is affirmed.
1 Note that the present claims are not limited to a single brightener.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013