Appeal No. 1998-3059
Application 08/554,288
established that the solutions containing copper, nickel and
tin, upon which the calculations are based, cannot be used in
an electrolytic plating process. Also, the examiner has not
established that Schwartz’s process involves displacing iron
by copper. For these reasons and because Schwartz
specifically states that he discloses electrolytes for
immersion electrolytic plating, the preponderance of the
evidence weighs in favor of a finding that Schwartz’s
disclosure is directed toward electroplating rather than
electroless plating.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the examiner has
not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the appellants’ claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
the combined teachings of Knaster and Schwartz is reversed.
REVERSED
TERRY J. OWENS )
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007