Appeal 2007-1209
Application 10/763,979
composite substrates, while achieving high current efficiency over a wide
current density range (see Transl. 2, penultimate para.).
Appellant relies upon a Declaration by the inventor as evidence of
unexpected results. However, the Declaration falls far short of presenting
objective evidence that is commensurate in scope with the degree of
protection sought by the appealed claims, and representing a meaningful
comparison between methods embraced by the appealed claims and outside
the scope of the appealed claims but within the broader disclosure of JP '588.
For instance, claim 19, with which all the appealed claims stand or fall,
broadly recites the deposition of any metal and fails to specify any particular
complexing agent.1 Significantly, the only objective evidence presented in
the declaration is "tests were carried out to repeat Example 1 of the "588
patent" (Decl., para. 5). The Declaration states that the solution representing
Example 1 of the '588 patent "became unstable at pHs of above 5.5 with
precipitation of the metal components being observed initially as cloudiness
(at a pH of 6) to a precipitate of tin hydroxide in the beaker at a pH of 7"
(id.). The Declaration further states "[i]t is not possible to obtain useful
metal deposits with unstable solutions of this type [but that] the solution at a
preferred pH in the claimed range, i.e., 5, was completely stable as shown by
the clear solution in the beaker" (id.).
Manifestly, this limited test described in the Declaration fails to
present comparative data between plating methods performed at values
within the claimed ranges and values outside the claimed ranges for pH and
1 Appellant has not set forth an argument that is reasonably specific to any
particular claim on appeal. Accordingly, all of the appealed claims stand or
fall together with claim 19.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013