Appeal No. 2001-0106
Application 08/855,811
application recite a device, an electrical component, and a process for improving
electrical properties of a bond.
Discussion
Issue I. The Rejections over Thomson, Pleuddemann and Hahn Individually
We address the single reference combined §102/§103 rejections first. In the
Examiner’s Answer, Page 4, lines 6-14, the Examiner states that:
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable
over the teachings of the U.S. Patent to Thomson.
Thomson (U.S. 3,715,371) discloses that it is known to bond an inorganic
(e.g. metal) substrate to any polymeric material via the interposition
therebetween of an (e.g. amino containing) organosilane compound/coupling
agent. (abstract, column 1, line 7 through column 2, line 59, column 4, line 14
through column 5, line 65). Any differences which might possibly/conceivably
exist between this envisioned, claimed invention and the teachings of this
reference do NOT constitute patentable differences. [Capitalization in original]
In response, the Appellants note that Thomson is “absolutely silent about
bonding of an electrically-conductive adhesive to a metal substrate” (Appeal Brief, page
7, lines 2-3).
Turning now to the Pleuddemann and Hahn rejections, we note that the
Examiner stated at page 4, line 18 – page 5, line 5 of the Examiner’s Answer, that:
Plueddemann (U.S. 3,956,353-abstract, column 1, lines 23-56, column 2, lines
50-66, column 3, lines 16-23) and Hahn et al (U.S. 5,002,808- abstract, column
1, lines 16-48, column 3, lines 44-60, column 6, lines 41-49) both disclose that is
it known to bond an inorganic (e.g. metal) substrate to any of a wide variety of
polymeric materials via the interposition therebetween of an organosilane
compound/coupling agent. The Examiners position is that any differences which
might possibly/conceivably exist between this envisioned, claimed invention and
the teachings of either of these references do not constitute patentable
differences.
The Appellants position (Appeal Brief, page 11, lines 3-4) is that:
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007