Appeal No. 1999-0544 Page 3
Application No. 08/324,842
All the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
1. To reject claims 1-2, the Examiner relies on Honjo in view of Portner as evidence of
obviousness.
2. To reject claims 5, 6, and 10-12, the Examiner relies on Honjo in view of Portner and
Dickirson as evidence of obviousness.
3. To reject claims 3 and 4, the Examiner relies on Honjo in view of Portner and Keyes as
evidence of obviousness
4. To reject claims 7-9 and 13-21, the Examiner relies on Honjo in view of Portner and Akoh as
evidence of obviousness.
We reverse all the rejections for the following reasons.
OPINION
Of the appealed claims, two are independent claims, claims 1 and 13. We begin our
discussion with claim 1. Claim 1 requires heating the surface of the substrate in a specific
temperature range for a time sufficient for “the metal” to adhere to the substrate. The metal
referenced by the claim is the metal formed on the surface by electroless plating. To adhere to
the substrate, the electrolessly plated metal must be present on the substrate. We conclude that
the claim requires, as argued by Appellants (Brief at 4), that the substrate be heated after the
layer of metal is electrolessly plated thereon.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007