Appeal 2007-4313
Application 10/286,172
(Oesterle 4:24-35.) Oesterle notes that it is well known in the art that
cathodes work by attracting positively charged ions. (Oesterle 5:5-29.)
Oesterle is in a very different field of invention (soil remediation) and
Oesterle's apparatus is not designed for small-piece electroplating. Like
Murata, however, Oesterle is addressing a problem in electrochemical
deposition systems. We find that one in the small-piece electroplating art
would have considered a teaching regarding maximizing the space-
efficiency of a cathode in a limited reaction area to be pertinent to the
problems facing the small-piece electroplating art.
Murata notes that Oesterle's grooves are vertical and thus different
from Murata's claimed upper-surface recesses.
The Lowenheim reference work
Lowenheim is a basic electrochemical reference work and the portion
of record does not relate to any specific application. Instead it is cited for its
explanation of Faraday's law in the context of electroplating. Faraday's law
is relevant in this context because it shows that current is a result-effecting
variable in electroplating. Essentially, increased current relates to increased
rate of electrochemical change.
The Jacobus patent
We do not need to reach the Jacobus patent in our analysis because
the broad principles for which it is cited are more clearly developed in the
Oesterle patent.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013