Appeal No. 1997-3314
Application 08/266,783
are suitable would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, use of commercially available polyimides
generally such as UPILEX S which, appellants acknowledge, wasŪ
commercially available and is made from a diaryl dianhydride
and a diamine (specification, page 2, lines 24-31).1
Sallo does not disclose the chromium sputtering
deposition rate or temperature. However, Clabes discloses a
method, in the electronics field, for applying a layer of a
metal which can be copper or chromium onto a substrate which
can be a polyimide substrate, by altering the surface
chemistry of the substrate using low energy irradiation and
depositing the metal by sputtering or evaporation (col. 1,
lines 21-26; col. 4, lines
11-14 and 42-45; col. 6, lines 11-13, 17 and 38-42). In one
embodiment the low energy irradiation and metal deposition
take place simultaneously and the metal deposition rate is
1-100 D/sec (col. 5, lines 48-63). Clabes teaches that the
1 It is axiomatic that our consideration of the prior art
must, of necessity, include consideration of the admitted
prior art. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039-40, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134
USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007