Appeal No. 2006-1079
Application No. 10/139,085
the silver ions will necessarily cause some degree of immersion plating. The problem
with the examiner’s reasoning is that it fails to explain why one of ordinary skill in the
art, would have been motivated to “contact[] the metal with an immersion silver plating
bath for a period of time sufficient to deposit a desired thickness of silver by immersion
plating,” as required by the rejected claims.
The rejection is reversed.
In summary:
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11, 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Whitney is affirmed as to claims 1-4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 19 and 21 and
reversed as to claim 5.
The rejection of claims 14, 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Whitney as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Krulik is
reversed.
The rejection of claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Whitney as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Soutar is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 10, 11 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Kinase is reversed.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007