Appeal No. 1998-2643
Application 08/549,349
5-6). Accordingly, Lantz does not remedy the deficiency
discussed above with respect to the rejection over Haluska.
Therefore the rejection of claims 34-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Haluska in view of Lantz is reversed.
C. The New Ground of Rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Pursuant to the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter
a new ground of rejection of claims 40-41 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Duncan.
Independent claim 40 recites a coating method where the
particles are not specified nor is the substrate. This claim
requires only selecting particles such that they become molten
at temperature T1 and produce an impact force not exceeding a
specific level when striking a surface at velocity V1, heating
the particles to temperature T1, accelerating the particles to
velocity V1 towards a surface, and making successive passes
with this particle spray. Claim 41 depends on claim 40 and
recites the size of the particles and that the surface is a
circuit.
Duncan discloses a method for encapsulating
semiconductors where a refractory coating is applied by means
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007