Appeal No. 2001-2255
Application 09/027,856
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered and are deemed
to be waived by appellants [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative claim 12, the examiner finds
that Burr teaches the claimed invention except for the
composition of the resist and the electrical components disposed
atop the permanent plating resist. The examiner finds that it
would have been obvious to the artisan to place an electrical
component on the resist and connect it to the metal in the
apertures because it was well known in the art. The examiner
cites Day as teaching the composition of the claimed resist. The
examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
use the Day composition as the resist layer of Burr because it is
obvious to use known materials based on their suitability
[answer, page 3].
Appellants argue, inter alia, that the composition disclosed
by Day is taught for use as a solder mask, and there is no
suggestion that the composition is suitable as a resist for
electroless plating. Appellants assert that there is no
indication in Day that the solder mask is capable of having
circuitry or components formed thereon after it has been used as
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007