Appeal No. 2001-0130
Application No. 09/050,491
mechanism of the Park process and Appellants’ process are NOT
the same.” (Id. at page 24.) Appealed claim 1, however, does
not recite the requirements on which the appellants rely for
patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5
(CCPA 1982)(“Many of appellant’s arguments fail from the outset
because, as the solicitor has pointed out, they are not based on
limitations appearing in the claims.”).
For these reasons, we uphold the examiner’s rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of appealed claims 1 through 3, 5 through 11,
14, 16, 18 through 22, 30, 32 through 37, 40, 42, and 44 through
47 as anticipated by Park ‘095.
Rejection IV: 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Park ‘942
or Park ‘095 in View of Reddy
The examiner relies on Reddy for the teaching that nickel
alloys, as recited in appealed claims 4 and 31, “are also
effective in addition to nickel as a source metal to apply to
metallizations of tungsten to make them brazable or
solderable...” (Answer, page 5.) From this teaching in Reddy,
the examiner determined that it would have been prima facie
obvious to use nickel alloys as the metal source in Park ‘095.
(Id.)
12
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007