Appeal No. 1998-3401
Application No. 08/495,277
brief, page 10) that none of the applied references teach
"disrupting the film barrier..." as recited in the applied
claims, the examiner states:
Note that the disrupting step, as broadly claimed,
reads on a chemically disrupting step (not merely
mechanically disrupting) which is disclosed by Kumar et
al. The claims do not cite an agitation step.
Further, an immersion technique as taught by Dull also
reads on the claimed disrupting step because the
disrupting step can be chemical. [Id. at p. 7.]
We cannot agree with the examiner. As we discussed at the
outset, step (e) of the claimed method requires removal of the
film barrier that is formed upon applying the low-reactive
solution. Although the examiner relies on Dull's teachings, we
must agree with the appellants that these teachings are
insufficient. Specifically, Dull teaches that the board is
immersed in a tank containing the etchant and placed there for
about 25-45 minutes before it is checked for completion. (Column
2, lines 31-42.) Dull further discloses: "The part [board] is
monitored after checking until the desired line width is
achieved. During immersion, there is no agitation." (Column 2,
lines 42-44.) Nowhere in Dull, or any other applied prior art
reference, is there any teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
remove a film barrier as recited in the appealed claims.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007