Opinion ID: 398222
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Borax Rinses

Text: 25 Accused Practices 1, 2, 8, 18, 20, 23, 24, 32, 34, 35, 39, 43, 55, 57 and 58 allegedly involved the use of a neutralizing rinse (as opposed to a lubricant) containing borax. 4 The Special Master concluded that the use of rinses containing borax did not infringe claim 4, for the following reasons:i) There was no evidence that borax (or equivalent) rinses were used to lubricate the metal or to aid in cleaning. Special Master's Report at 46; Appendix at 306. 26 ii) The borax was used solely to neutralize acid carryover resulting from the phosphate bath. Numerous other techniques which did not involve borax were also used to achieve this result. Special Master's Report at 46-47; Appendix at 306-07. 27 iii) Example XXXV in the 1950 Henricks patent application set forth the use of a borax rinse to neutralize the acid. Example XXXV was cancelled by Henricks when the patent examiner required that the specification be shortened and limited to 'such parts of it as are commensurate with claims that applicant will continue to prosecute.'  Moreover, Henricks testified that neutralizing rinses were old and well known. Special Master's Report at 47-48; Appendix at 307-08. 28