Appeal No. 1998-0754
Application No. 08/652,253
The use of a Pd sol which is stabilized with such a polymer does not activate glass, but it does activate
other materials such as metals, semiconductors and polymers. (Page 2, lines 46-54). De Bakker
describes a comparative example in which a Sn-Pd sol is tested. (Comparative example, page 5, lines
34-54). In the comparative example,
De Bakker states that:
Using this pretreatment process, only the reactive nickel bath on the basis of pyrophosphate
(pH = 11) leads to metallization of the ITO [indium tin oxide] surfaces; with the other baths no
metallization is observed. Besides, the adhesion of the nickel layer obtained in the
pyrophosphate bath is of a poor quality: in the tape-test the entire nickel layer is pulled off the
ITO. Apparently, the Sn-Pd sol nucleation of ITO is very mediocre. (Comparative example,
page 5, lines 44-54).
Additionally, De Bakker teaches that Sn-Pd sols require additional processing steps as compared to a
Pd sol which is stabilized using a water-soluble polymer. (Page 2, lines 25-28 and
lines 41-55).
The Prima Facie Case
The examiner has rejected claims 2-9, 12-18 and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Halliwell in view of De Bakker. Briefly, the examiner has rejected the claims as2
unpatentable in light of Halliwell’s teaching of a method for plating a workpiece, such as a polymer,
2As noted by appellants on page 6 of the Brief, claims 5-9 and 20-23 stand or fall together and
claims 2-4 and 12-18 stand or fall together. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of 37 CFR §
1.192(c)(7) we decide the grounds of rejection in this appeal on the basis of independent claim 21, and
dependent claim 2.
Page 5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007