Appeal 2007-0501
Application 10/747,956
claims 8 through 11 as unpatentable over Seseke-Koyro ‘641 or Lauzon,
either in view of Popoola (Answer 3-4); and
claim 12 as unpatentable over Seseke-Koyro ‘641 or Lauzon in view of
Shimajiri (id. 4-5).
We have relied on US 6,432,221 to Seseke-Koyro (Seseke-Koyro
‘221) of record as a translation of Seseke-Koyro ‘641 because Appellants
state Seseke-Koyro ‘641 “is equivalent to” Seseke-Koyro ‘221 (Br.2 4; see
also Reply Br. 1:26). Indeed, the Examiner refers to Seseke-Koyro ‘221 in
the Answer (Answer, e.g., 7:5).3
Appellants argue the appealed claims as a group as well as argue
claims 8, 10, 11, and 12 individually, with claim 9 standing or falling with
claim 8 (Br. 6, 7, 8, and 10-12). Thus, we decide this appeal based on
appealed claims 8, 10, 11, and 12 as representative of the grounds of
rejection and Appellants’ groupings of claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2005).
The Examiner contends Seseke-Koyro ‘221 and Lauzon disclose
potassium fluorozincate as a fluxing agent for aluminum brazing (Answer
3 and 4). The Examiner concludes this is a disclosure of substantially
similar products to that claimed sufficient to render product-by-process
claims 8, 10, and 11 prima facie obvious (id.). With respect to these claims,
the Examiner further contends Seseke-Koyro ‘221 and Lauzon do not
disclose the particle size of the potassium fluorozincate (id. 4). The
Examiner contends Popoola discloses a flux containing fluoride salts for
brazing aluminum which is applied as a solution by spraying, wherein the
2 We consider the Brief filed March 21, 2006.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013