Appeal No. 2003-0636
Application No. 09/599,125
solution via spraying. As a result, we agree with the examiner
that utilizing the spraying technique disclosed by Kobayashi
would have inherently produced some degree of cleaning of the
substrate, which is all that is required by the appealed claims.
We find no merit in appellants' argument that the electroless
plating of Kobayashi is performed on a glass substrate. In our
view, Kobayashi establishes that the spraying of an electroless
plating solution was conventional in the art, and appellants have
not argued otherwise.
Concerning the § 103 rejections, we note that appellants
base no argument upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such
as unexpected results, which would serve to rebut the inference
of obviousness established by the applied references.
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection. Claims 1-4, 7, 10-13, 16-19
and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over the collective teachings of Lopatin, Mallory, Reynolds and
Kobayashi. From our discussion above, it is apparent that it is
our opinion that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to employ the megasonic energy disclosed by
Reynolds and the spraying technique taught by Kobayashi in the
electroless plating processes of Lopatin and Mallory. As
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007