Appeal 2007-1798
Application 10/347,666
The Examiner finds that Wehrmann teaches an electrolyte
composition that comprises:
1) 0.1-15%, by weight of an alkali metal silicate, such as sodium
silicate; and
2) 0.1-40%, by weight of a complex-forming substance, such as an
amino acid that may be glutamic acid or aspartic acid (α-amino acids)
(Answer 3).
According to the Examiner, the concentrations of sodium silicate and
α-amino acids taught by Wehrmann overlap those set forth in Appellants’
claim 1. In this regard, we note that “where there is a range disclosed in the
prior art, and the claimed invention falls within that range, there is a
presumption of obviousness.” Iron Grip Barbell Co. v. USA Sports, Inc.,
392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The Examiner recognizes, however, that Wehrmann does not disclose
the pH of the electrolyte composition (Answer 4). Nevertheless, the
Examiner finds that the pH of an electrolyte composition “has an effect on
the corrosiveness or etching power of the electrolyte toward the metal being
anodized and the oxide which forms during the anodization process” (id.).
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the pH of the electrolyte composition will
affect the properties of the final product (id.). Accordingly, the Examiner
reasons that “[t]he pH of an electrolyte composition used for anodizing is a
result-effective variable” (id.). From this the Examiner reasons that
[s]ince pH is a result-effective variable, choice of an
appropriate value of pH would have been a matter of routine
optimization within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art
based on the objective of successfully anodizing aluminum to
achieve the best performance in applications such as the
manufacture of electrolytic capacitors.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013