Appeal No. 1999-2739
Application No. 08/891,127
examiner applies Patel for the teaching of electroless nickel
plating onto a silicon substrate (id.).
Appellants argue that Patel is directed to electroless
deposition of nickel onto a silicon substrate, not the
polysilicon substrate required by claim 1 on appeal (Brief,
pages 8 and 15). Appellants also argue that there is no
motivation to combine Patel and Takeuchi (Brief, page 7). We
agree.
The examiner has failed to establish why one of ordinary
skill in this art would have taken the electroless nickel
deposition onto silicon, as taught by Patel, and used this
method on the polysilicon substrate of Takeuchi. Furthermore,
the examiner has not even attempted to present any teaching,
suggestion, or motivation to combine these references as
proposed in the examiner’s rejection (Answer, pages 4-5). See
In re Dembiczak,
175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(The
showing or evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007