Appeal No. 2001-0964
Application No. 09/069,442
16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d
272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980); In re Aller, 220 F.2d
454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
For these reasons and those expressed in the answer, we will
sustain the Section 103 rejection of claims 1-3, 10 and 15 as
being obvious over Korbelak as well as the alternative Section
103 rejection of claims 5, 6 and 8 as being obvious over
Korbelak.1
Concerning the Section 103 rejection based on Korbelak in
view of Moon, we again share the examiner’s obviousness
conclusion, namely, that it would have been obvious to provide
the electroplating bath formulations of Korbelak with diammonium
hydrogen citrate to obtain the conductive salt function thereof
in accordance with the teachings of Moon. Contrary to the
appellant’s belief, this obviousness conclusion is not
forestalled simply because Moon’s electroplating bath includes
palladium as well as gold. This is because the enhancements
achieved by Moon’s conductive salts would have been desirable in
1It is appropriate to here clarify that we sustain the
examiner’s Section 103 rejection of dependent claims 5, 6 and
8 (as well as dependent claims 10 and 15) based upon an
obviousness conclusion rather than an anticipation finding with
respect to the subject matter of parent independent claim 4.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007