Appeal No. 2001-0106
Application 08/855,811
[sic] conjunction with the process of Bruder.” (Examiner’s Answer, page 6, lines 18 -
20).
In response, the appellants note that “The deficiencies of each of these
references have been pointed out above and thus it is believed that they are allowable”
(Appeal Brief, page 12, lines 2-4).
Claim 6 recites an electrical component comprising a metal substrate, a layer of
a coupling agent on the substrate, an adhesive (not necessarily conductive) bonded to
the layer of coupling agent, and an electrically conductive adherend. The coupling
agent is bonded to the metal of the substrate and is also reacted with the adhesive.
Iliou discloses an electronic component having a rigid conductive plate (column
2, line 42) bonded to an electrically conductive epoxide adhesive film (column 2, lines
58-59) bonded to a flexible conductive plate (e.g. Duroid 6010 or Diclad 810 (column 2,
lines 22-28). Pleuddemann discloses using the claimed organosilane coupling agents
(column 1, line 25 et seq.) on inorganic substrates (including metals) (column 2, lines
58-66) and epoxy resins (column 3, lines 18-19).
This is also a strong prima facie case of obviousness, and the Examiner has
remained unpersuaded by the resistivity stability results put forth by the Appellants. For
the reasons previously recited, we find no error in the Examiner’s maintaining this
rejection, and affirm Rejection F.
Discussion of Category B Rejection
Rejection (G)
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Thomson in view of Hahn
This rejection is argued by the Examiner as follows:
19
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007