Appeal No. 1997-0330
Application 08/493,758
that, given the teachings of Kirman, one of ordinary
skill would have selected the two recited salts. This
has not been done and we therefore reverse this
rejection.
II. New Ground of Rejection under 37 C.F.R. ' 1.196(b)
Under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. ' 1.196(b), we
make the following new ground of rejection.
Obviousness
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as
being unpatentable over Kirman in view of Beckwith [U.S.
3,769,182].
For the reasons set forth supra, Kirman renders
prima facie obvious the claimed acidic electrolyte
composition comprising tin salts, surfactants and
fluoride complexes at the claimed concentration. Kirman
however does not teach employing fluoride salts in the
plating bath as prescribed by claim 3. Kirman (col. 5,
lines 30-42) teaches only acids as a source for the
fluoride ions.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007