Ex Parte EGITTO et al - Page 13


              Appeal No. 2001-0106                                                                                     
              Application 08/855,811                                                                                   
                     Pleuddemann or Hahn et al for their documented beneficial coupling and/or                         
                     adhesion promoting function in/in [sic] conjunction with the process of Bruder.                   
                     (Examiner’s Answer, page 6, lines 9-15).                                                          
                     The Appellants, on the other hand, note the following:                                            
                     As pointed out in the [Appeal] brief, it is true that Bruder does teach the use of a              
                     conductive adhesive agent against the metallic layer.  However, Bruder does not                   
                     suggest using a coupling agent.  Moreover, it is true that Thomson does suggest                   
                     using a coupling agent but, for the purpose of improving adhesion with respect to                 
                     a nonconductive adhesive against a metal substrate. (Reply Brief, page 2, lines                   
                     15-19)                                                                                            
                     The Appellant goes on to dispute the prima facie case of obviousness, stating                     
              that the “reference performs a step for a different purpose and which does not recognize                 
              the problem solved by the applicants [prevention of electrical degradation over time]”                   
              (Reply Brief, page 2, lines 23-24).    Further, the Appellants note, via the declarations of             
              Egitto and Cain, that “the coupling agents do not improve the adhesion in a significant                  
              way between the electrically conductive adhesive and the metal substrate.” (Reply Brief,                 
              page 2, lines 27-29)(Emphasis in Original).                                                              
                     The Appellants sum up their position at Reply Brief, page 3, lines 7-10, as                       
              follows:                                                                                                 
                     [A]ll the prior art references which suggest the use of the coupling agent suggest                
                     it for the use in improving adhesion, which it does not do in the instant case, but               
                     none suggest it for improving the resistance to degradation of electrical                         
                     properties over time, which it does do.                                                           

                     The Examiner disputes the Declaration conclusion, noting  “that the conductive                    
              adhesive envisioned for use by appellants fractures internally (where no coupling                        
              agent/function is present is held/seen not to (necessarily) indicate that there is no                    
              adhesion improvement at the metal/conductive adhesive interface.” (Examiner’s                            
              Answer, page 8, lines 6-9).                                                                              

                                                          13                                                           



Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007