Appeal No. 2006-1079
Application No. 10/139,085
Claims 1 and 14 are illustrative of the subject matter now on appeal and are reproduced below:
1. A method of improving the adhesion of a layer of silver deposited from an
immersion plating bath comprising the step of: contacting a metal that is less
electropositive than silver with a pretreatment composition comprising one or more
azole compounds, one or more chelating agents and water prior to contacting the metal
with an immersion silver plating bath for a period of time sufficient to deposit a desired
thickness of silver by immersion plating, wherein the one or more chelating agents are
chosen from ammonia, cyanide, pyridine, amino acids having from 2 to 10 carbon
atoms, polycarboxylic acids, amino acetic acids, alkylene polyamine polyacetic acids,
polyamines, citrates, tartrates, N,N-di-(2hydroxyethyl)glycine, gluconates, lactates,
crown ethers, cryptands, 2,2’,2”-nitrilotriethanol, 2,2’-bipyridine, 1,10-phenanthroline,
8-hydroxyquinoline, thio-containing ligands, and aminoalcohols.
14. A method of manufacturing a printed wiring board comprising the steps of:
contacting a metal that is less electropositive than silver with an ethant composition,
then contating the metal with a pretreatment composition comprising one or more
azole compounds, one or more chelating agents and water; and then contacting the
metal with an immersion silver plating bath for a period of time sufficient to deposit a
desired thickness of silver by immersion plating, wherein the one or more chelating
agents are chosen from ammonia, cyanide, pyridine, amino acinds having from 2 10 10
carbon atoms, polycarboxylic acinds, amino acetic acids, alkylene polyamine
polyacetic acinds, polyaminenes, citrares, tartrates, n,n,-di(2-hydroxyethyl)glycine,
gluconates, lactates, crown eithers, cryptands, 2,2’,2”-nitrilotriethanol, 2,2’-bipyridine,
1,10-phenanthroline, 8-hydroxyquinoline, thio-containing ligands and aminoalcohols.
Grounds of Rejection
1. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Whitney.
2. Claims 14, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Whitney as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Krulik.
3. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Whitney
as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Soutar.
4. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kinase.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007