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). 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007