Appeal No. 1998-0754
Application No. 08/652,253
Appellants’ Appeal Brief
Appellants’ Appeal Brief fails to convince us that the examiner erred in establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claims 5-9 and 20-23. According to appellants, Halliwell
fails to teach or suggest the claimed method defined by the claims on appeal. Specifically, appellants
state that Halliwell teaches Sn ions in contrast to the claimed Sn free Pd sol which is stabilized with a2+
water-soluble polymer and that the claimed Pd sol is significantly more useful for nickel electroless
plating processes. As discussed in detail above, Halliwell is not limited in its teachings to Sn ion 2+
containing sensitizers. Indeed, it is clear that Halliwell instructs one skilled in the art to employ
conventional sensitizers, beyond the specifically recited
PdCl -SnCl -HCl solutions, to pretreat substrates in metal plating processes.
2 2
As to appellants’ statement that the claimed Pd sensitizing bath is significantly more useful, mere
argument of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. Este Lauder, Inc. V. L’Oreal,
S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 595, 44 USPQ2d 1610, 1615 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In the present appeal, no
convincing evidence has been called to our attention to support the argument that the claimed Pd bath
provides an unexpected, significant improvement over the prior art Pd sensitizers. This is especially true
in light of De Bakker which teaches that the claimed Pd sensitizers provide several advantages over
previous Sn-Pd sols.
Appellants also argue that De Bakker teaches water-soluble stabilized Sn free Pd sol for
Page 10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007