Appeal No. 1997-2097
Application No. 08/191,137
coatings, and Ni would have been expected to be a
suitable intermediate layer for Klingenmaier’s Fe
coating because Ni and Fe are well known for forming
alloys, hence they would have been expected to form
a compatible interface where no adhesion problems
would have been expected . . . . The relative
toxicity of a solution is an inherent property and
if the particular nickel, bath is less toxic than
Klingenmaier’s Cu cyanide, that is just an
additional reason for substituting Ni plating for
the Cu coating, as would be recognized by a
responsible and ordinary practitioner in the art.
While Klingenmaier taught that the FeCl bath
2
proved optimum for deposition of hard Fe on Cu, one
of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
for a different intermediate layer, i.e. Ni, routine
experimentation with known Fe plating solutions
would have been needed to re-optimize as one would
not expect different elements to behave identically
with respect to Klingenmaier’s previous
optimization. Shemenski et al. teach (abstract)
various Fe electroplating solutions . . . that can
be used equivalently for deposition on metal . . . .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
to consider such teaching of alternate and
equivalent Fe sources for electroplating, when
optimizing through routine experimentation as
discussed above. . . .
. . . Herbert illustrates electroplating iron,
using baths containing iron salts . . . onto
electrically conductive substrates, which include Al
plated with Ni . . . . Hence, it would have been
abundantly obvious to one of ordinary skill that
given Lock’s teachings as applied to Klingenmaier,
one would have expected the Fe to be electroplated
on the Ni undercoat with acceptable adhesion, as the
prior art explicitly shows that it is known to do
so. (emphasis in original).
The difficulty we have with the examiner's stated
Page 7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007