Appeal No. 1997-2919
Application No. 08/573,921
claim 7 in the Appendix of appellants’ brief is incorrect due
to an apparent typographical error in the spelling of the word
“patterned” on line 3.
With regard to the rejections relating to claims 2-4, 6
and 9, we note that Schnur discloses a method which, like
appellants’, involves four fundamental process steps including
formation of a silane layer on a substrate (which may be a
glass substrate), selective removal of a portion of the silane
layer by irradiation, activation of the remaining portion of
the silane layer with a palladium-based catalyst, and
electroless metallization of the activated area.
We agree with the examiner that it would have been prima
facie obvious within the purview of 35 U.S.C. § 103 to use the
Gulla tin-free palladium catalyst, stabilized with a water-
soluble polymer, in the Schnur process to obtain the many
benefits disclosed by Gulla (col. 1, l. 65-col. 2, l. 3; col.
3, l. 50-col. 4, l. 15).
We also agree with the examiner that it would have been
obvious to employ the particular silanes of claims 3 and 4 in
the Schnur process since these silanes are specifically taught
in Bach (col. 5, l. 41-43; col. 4, l. 31-34) and Lombardo
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007