Appeal No. 96-1313
Application 08/202,536
use in applications where running of the solution is not a
problem, i.e., when the substrates are small enough to be
immersed in the solution and are movable such that immersion
in the solution is not possible. Consequently, it would have
been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to omit Morgan’s thickener along with its function when a
substrate is used which can be plated by immersing it in the
thickener-free solution. See In re Wilson, 377 F.2d 1014,
1017, 153 USPQ 740, 742 (CCPA 1967); In re Larson, 340 F.2d
965, 969, 144 USPQ 347, 350 (CCPA 1965); In re Brown, 228 F.2d
247, 249, 108 USPQ 232, 234 (CCPA 1955).
Appellants point out that Morgan teaches that the bath
should contain sufficient reducing agent to reduce both ionic
species when two ionic species are used in combination, and
argues that this teaching indicates that the conditions in the
bath are such that the second ionic species does not function
as a mediator ion in relation to the first ionic species
(brief, pages 7-8). This argument is not persuasive because
it is merely an unsupported argument by appellants’ counsel.
See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007