Appeal No. 2001-2255
Application 09/027,856
a solder mask. Appellants additionally argue that there is
nothing to indicate to the artisan that the solder mask
composition of Day would make a suitable substitution for the
unidentified resist of Burr [brief, pages 4-9].
The examiner responds that the mask of Day is used for the
same purpose as the mask in Burr. The examiner also notes that
the solder mask of Day is appropriate for use as an electroless
plating mask because appellants have admitted this fact in their
disclosure. The examiner asserts that the artisan would have
known to select any suitable and known mask for use in Burr.
Finally, the examiner responds that appellants have stated no
reasons why the artisan would think that the resin mask of Day
would not be suitable for use as an electroless plating mask
[answer, pages 4-7].
Appellants respond that there is nothing in any reference
cited by the examiner that would indicate that the material of
Day would have the properties required for a plating resist.
Appellants also respond that there is nothing in the cited
references which would indicate to the artisan that he could
anticipate the results obtained with a high degree of
probability. Appellants also note that the examiner’s position
that the Day composition works as a resist mask is a fact not
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007