Appeal No. 2000-0701
Application No. 08/816,471
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over comparative example 4 (i.e., foil type 4) in view of
comparative example 2 (i.e., foil type 2) (specification, page 15, Table II).1
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 25) and the answer (paper
number 26) for the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 6, 9, 10 and 12 through 20.
In the admitted prior art, foil type 4 with an average roughness of 1.25 and a
reflection density of 0.76 is disclosed as having a base layer of copper, an intermediate
layer of nickel and a surface layer of nickel. The noted foil type 2 with an average
roughness of 2.0 and a reflection density of 0.65 is disclosed as having a base layer of
copper, an intermediate layer of copper and a surface layer of nickel. As is apparent
from the foil values, the average roughness of foil 4 is not “at least 1.4.”
The examiner contends (answer, page 3) that “[i]t would have been obvious to
vary the roughness to at least 1.4 where Example 4 uses 1.25 and it is known to have a
roughness higher than 1.4 as Example 2 discloses, for the purpose of varying the
contact resistance or adhesion, where the height of the protrusions varies the adhesive
1 According to the examiner (answer, page 3), “[e]xamples 2 and 4 and the foil types noted are
admitted prior art as noted by Applicant[s] in Paper no. 16.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007