Appeal No. 1998-3401
Application No. 08/495,277
In the present case, we observe that appealed claim 1
recites, as step (e), "disrupting the film barrier to thereby
stimulate removal of additional surface portion and formation of
additional film barrier."2 As pointed out by the appellants
(reply brief, pages 3-4), it is clear from a reading of the
specification that one skilled in the relevant art would
understand the phrase "disrupting the film barrier..." recited in
step (e) to require removal of the film barrier. (Specification,
page 4, lines 5-10; page 5, lines 25-27; page 6, lines 16-19;
page 8, line 18 to page 9, line 5; Fig. 10.)
With this understanding of the meaning of the contested
claim limitation, we now consider the merits of the examiner's
rejections. The examiner states that Kumar, the principal
reference applied in all of the rejections, discloses a method
comprising: (a) patterning a resist layer 40 that overlays a
substrate of a circuit board; (b) removing the patterned resist
layer in the desired circuit paths; (c) depositing a conductive
material 46 on the circuit board in the pattern defined by the
removed resist layer so that the height of the conductive
material relative to the substrate exceeds the height of the
resist layer relative to the substrate; and (d) applying a low-
reactive solution, over at least the conductive material.
(Examiner's answer, pages 3-4.) The examiner further refers to
2 Appealed claim 9, the only other independent claim,
recites step (e) as follows: "removing the film barrier and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007