Appeal No. 1998-0754
Application No. 08/652,253
means that limitations stated in dependent claims are not to be read into the independent claim from
which they depend.” Karlin Technology Inc., v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971-72,
50 USPQ2d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In Halliwell, independent
claims 1, 10 and 17 recite methods for plating a metal onto a workpiece where the workpiece is
treated with a sensitizer. Yet, dependent claims 2, 11 and 18, which depend from claims 1, 10 and 17
respectively, recite that the sensitizer is PdCl -SnCl -HCl. Thus, it is clear that Halliwell instructs one
2 2
skilled in the art that conventional sensitizers, beyond the specifically recited
PdCl -SnCl -HCl solutions, can be used to pretreat substrates in metal plating processes.
2 2
As discussed above, De Bakker, apparently assigned to N.V. Philips, teaches that an aqueous
Sn free Pd sol which is stabilized with a water-soluble polymer is not only an effective sensitizer for
pretreating metal surfaces but also is an improvement compared to previous PdCl -SnCl sensitizers. 3
2 2
In particular, De Bakker demonstrates that it is easier to plate a surface treated with an aqueous Sn free
Pd sol which is stabilized with a water-soluble polymer than with the previously known PdCl -SnCl
2 2
sensitizers. (See De Bakker, comparative example, p. 5). Therefore, we concur with the examiner that
it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to conduct appellants’ claimed process of providing
a metal pattern on an electrically insulating substrate (claims 5-9 and 20-23) in an electroless process
3We note that the present application, apparently assigned to U.S. Philips Corporation whose
parent is Philips Electronics N.V., similarly determined that an excellent Pd coating is obtained on
materials other than glass when using the Pd sols of De Bakker. (Appellants’ specification, page 4,
lines 15-19 and page 6, lines 2-6).
Page 8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007