Appeal 2007-4313
Application 10/286,172
matter (so-called secondary considerations) may also be relevant. One
function of secondary considerations is to guard against the employment of
impermissible hindsight. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 36
(1966), cited with approval in KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727,
82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The record on appeal does not contain objective
evidence of secondary considerations.
Scope and content of the prior art and
differences from the claimed subject matter
Admitted prior art
While neither the Final Rejection nor the Examiner's Answer identify
the admitted prior art with precision, the examiner identified the following
material as admitted prior art in the first "final" rejection at 2, entered
24 August 2005:
The admitted prior art is that shown in figure 6, of the
application, labeled "Prior Art," and the accompanying
description in the specification under the heading "Description
of the Related Art". Figure 6 shows a plating bath 3 in which
plating solution 2 is provided. Cathode 4 and anode 5 are
dipped in the plating solution. The cathode has a flat upper
surface and defines a portion of the component container 7.
Workpieces 6 to be plated contact the cathode during plating.
The admitted prior art is purportedly a Japanese laid-open application
(JP 5-70999) that is not in the record. Murata has not contested the
availability of this material as prior art, but does dispute its significance.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013