Appeal No. 2000-1835
Application No. 08/868,092 Page 3
We refer to the brief and to the answer for the opposing
viewpoints expressed by appellants and by the examiner concerning
the above-noted rejections.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments advanced
by appellants and the examiner and agree with appellants that the
aforementioned § 103 rejections as they pertain to claims 14-17,
19 and 22 are not well founded. However, appellants have not
convinced us of any reversible error in the examiner’s § 103
rejections as they pertain to claims 13, 18, 20, 21 and 23.
Accordingly, unlike the other appealed claims, we shall sustain
the examiner’s rejections as they pertain to claims 13, 18, 20,
21 and 23.
§ 103 Rejection Over Pendleton, Doty, Growald and Florio
Starting with independent claims 13 and 21, we note that
Pendleton discloses a process for electroplating a printed wiring
(circuit) board substrate that substantially corresponds to the
process of appealed claims 13 and 21. Pendleton teaches that,
inter alia, a solution containing a polyelectrolyte and a
reducing agent is used to treat the substrate, which is followed
by contacting the so treated substrate with a liquid dispersion
of carbon black particles to coat the surfaces of the substrate.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007