Ex parte FLORIO et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-1616                                                        
          Application No. 08/570,633                                                  

          depositing metal on a planar substrate having openings passing              
          through the full thickness of the substrate.  A further                     
          understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading                
          of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced in the appendix to                
          appellants’ main brief.                                                     
               The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of              
          obviousness are:                                                            
          Altenpohl et al. (Altenpohl)       2,912,369                Nov.            
          10, 1959                                                                    
          Burke, Jr. (Burke)            3,892,698                Jul.  1,             
          1975                                                                        
          Minten et al. (Minten)        4,619,741                Oct. 28,             
          1986                                                                        
          Thorn et al. (Thorn)          5,476,580                Dec. 19,             
          1995                                                                        
                                                  (filed May 3, 1994)                 
               Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 13-20 stand rejected under                
          35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Minten in view of                
          Altenpohl.                                                                  
               Claims 8, 9, 12 and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.               
           103 as being unpatentable over Minten in view of Altenpohl,               
          and further in view of Thorn and Burke.                                     
               Reference is made to appellants’ main and reply briefs                 
          (Paper Nos. 11 and 13) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No.              
          12) for the respective positions of appellants and the                      

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007