Appeal 2007-0501
Application 10/747,956
We determine the Examiner has established a prima facie case in each
of the grounds of rejection. We have difficulty with Appellants’ contentions
based on unidentified differences in properties between potassium
fluorozincate and potassium fluoroaluminate, both known compounds for
use in flux preparations for brazing aluminum and aluminum alloys as
acknowledged by Appellants, Seseke-Koyro ‘221 and Lauzon. Indeed, at
most, Appellants merely state several properties which can be considered in
employing these materials in flux preparations for different applications
(Reply Br. 2; see above p. 7).
Contrary to Appellants’ position is the disclosure in both Seseke-
Koyro ‘221 and Lauzon that potassium fluorozincate and potassium
fluoroaluminate can be used separately and combined in flux preparations
for the wet and dry applications taught therein, and the disclosure in Popoola
and Shimajiri that fluoride salts without limitation can be used in the wet and
dry applications disclosed therein. Indeed, Seseke-Koyro ‘221 discloses that
potassium fluorozincate and potassium fluoroaluminate can be combined in
the same and different amounts in flux preparations and illustrates a 1:1
mixture of these materials. Seseke-Koyro ‘221 further discloses the flux
compositions disclosed therein can be applied by electrostatic spray
technology as does Shimajiri, and as an aqueous or organic suspension or
paste as does Popoola, the brazing effected in substantially the same range of
temperatures. Lauzon discloses that potassium fluorozincate and potassium
fluoroaluminate can be combined in aqueous flux compositions for
considered “prior art” under § 103, conceding what is to be considered as
prior art in determining obviousness of their improvement).
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013