Appeal No. 2002-1061 Page 8
Application No. 09/358,365
with an aqueous reducing solution containing sodium metabisulfite and sodium sulfide
to convert the black oxide coatings to be roughened metallic copper coatings, this
modification of the Admitted Prior Art does not result in the claimed method. In our
view, the combined teachings of the Admitted Prior Art and Adlam do not teach or
suggest (1) thermally curing of the first insulating layer on the first conductive surface
resulting in the second conductive surface having a first oxidized layer thereon;
(2) removing the oxidized layer formed on the second conductive surface of the
conductive substrate; and (3) forming thin conductive wiring on the surfaces of both
the first and second insulating layers, including within both of the via holes, the forming
of the thin conductive wiring on both the first and second insulating layers involving
using only a single plating process.
Since the claimed subject matter of claim 1 is not suggested by the applied prior
art for the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1, and
claims 2 to 4, 7 to 10, 13 and 14 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.3
3 We have also reviewed the patent to Kajita additionally applied in the rejection of claims 2 to 4,
10, 13 and 14 but find nothing therein which makes up for the deficiencies of the Admitted Prior Art and
Adlam discussed above.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007