Appeal No. 1997-1173
Application No. 08/428,775
Matsubara, the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is reversed.
Rejections of claims 2 through 4 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a).
Claims 2 through 4, which depend from claim 1, further
recite “wherein said polymer is polyamic acid polyimide”
(claim 2), “wherein said conductive metal coating is a
composite of chrome/copper/gold having thicknesses of about
500 Angstroms chrome/500 Angstroms copper/2000 Angstroms gold”
(claim 3), and “wherein said soldering metal is 95% lead-5%
tin” (claim 4), respectively. Although claims 2 through 4
depend from claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 as being
anticipated by Matsubara
et al. has not been sustained, it is still necessary to
consider whether claims 2 through 4 would have been obvious
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As noted supra,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007