Appeal No. 2001-0106
Application 08/855,811
The Appellants have also stated that, based upon the declarations of Egitto and
Cain, that the claimed coupling agents “did not improve the adhesion in any statistically
significant way between the electrically conductive adhesive and the metal substrate
(Appeal Brief, page 9, lines 18 – 19).
The Examiner considered the declaration evidence and remained unpersuaded:
[T]hat 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 (where the coupling agent is present)
(Examiner’s Answer, page 8, lines 6 – 9).
We agree with the examiner. It seems that paragraphs 4 and 5 of the declaration
of Egitto clearly state that “the failure mechanism for all of the samples that were tested
was within the conductive adhesive layer and not at the adhesive layer interface to
either metal surface” (Egitto Declaration, page 2, paragraph No. 4, lines 2-4). Mr.
Egitto then concludes that “he as a person skilled in the art would not be led to utilize a
coupling agent for its known and intended purpose of improving adhesion, since the
coupling agent improved adhesion at the interface surface between the adhesive and
the metal substrate” Id., paragraph No. 5, lines 3-6).
This statement is totally different from the statement in the Appellants’ Brief, page
9, line18-19 in which the Appellants assert “These declarations clearly indicate that the
coupling agents did not improve the adhesion in any statistically significant way
between the electrically conductive adhesive and the metal substrate (Appeal Brief,
page 9, lines 18-19)(Emphasis added). Our interpretation of the declaration is similar to
the Examiner’s. As the bond failed at another location (the weakest link, so to speak)
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007