Appeal No. 2002-2221
Application No. 08/847,946
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and applied prior art, including
all of the arguments advanced by both the Examiner and Appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review leads us to conclude that the rejection of claims 1 to 12 is
not well founded. We will limit our discussion to the independent claims 1 and 9.
Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the Examiner and
Appellants, we refer to the Examiner’s Answer and to Appellants’ Brief for a complete
exposition thereof.
Draper is directed to a method of surface alloying. The method comprises the steps
of depositing a very thin metallic coating material (e.g., gold) on a metallic substrate (e.g.,
nickel). A short radiant energy pulse is directed at the coated substrate to melt portions of
the coating and the substrate there below. The radiant energy pulse is then removed to cool
and resolidify the metallic as an alloyed material. Electrical connectors fabricated by the
disclosed method have an electrical contact area thereon wherein the contact area is an alloy
of a very thin metallic film. (Col. 2, ll. 8 to 23). Draper discloses a radiant energy-
absorbing cap (e.g., palladium) was deposited on a nickel substrate having a gold coating
thereon. (Col. 5, ll. 7 to 18).
Draper differs from the invention of claims 1 and 9 in that the radiant energy pulse
used to apply the coating material melts portions of the coating and the substrate there
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007