Appeal No. 2001-0106
Application 08/855,811
in view of the knowledge of one of skill in the art of this commonly used coupling agent
(including the Tollefson and Stow patents), we find the evidence of improved electrical
properties insufficient to overcome the strong prima facie case of obviousness
established by the Examiner.
Rejection C is therefore sustained.
Rejection H
Claims 6 and 7 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Iliou in view of Thomson further in view of Hahn.
As Hahn is cumulative to Thomson, i.e. it discloses an organosilane coupling
agent (column 1, lines 32-48) for bonding inorganic surfaces including metal (column 6,
line 41-46) with polymers (column 2, lines 32-34), we sustain this rejection for the same
reasons. Rejection H is sustained.
Rejection D
Claim 6 stands further rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over
the teachings of the U.S. Patents to Iliou et al in view of Either Plueddemann or Hahn et
al.
In support of this rejection, the Examiner notes that:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to employ the
silane compound/coupling agent of either Plueddemann or Hahn et al for their
documented beneficial coupling and/or adhesion promoting function in/in [sic]
conjunction with the invention of Iliou et al. (Examiner’s Answer, page 6, lines 5-
8).
The Appellant states that “Pleuddemann and Hahn et al disclose increasing
adhesion and indicate no relationship effect on electrical properties.” (Appeal Brief,
page 13, lines 6-8).
We note that Bruder discloses the essential structure as claimed in claim 6. At
column 2, lines 5 – 33 the prior art conventional practice of manufacturing so-called
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007