Appeal No. 2002-0730 7
Application No. 09/410,250
plating.@ See Brief, page 8. The rejection before us is one of anticipation. The art of
record to Lyde and Morrissey either anticipates the invention or not. An argument that
existing literature teaches away from the use of such a bath for chip plating is unpersuasive
inasmuch as the Ateaching away@ is only from the ultimate intended utility and not to the
electrolytic solution which the appellants admit lacks novelty.
Similarly, with respect to the rejection over Morrissey, the appellants have argued
that, AMorrissey is specifically directed to a method of electroplating non-metallic surfaces
such as the plated-through-holes of printed wiring boards (PWBs). As with the patent to
Lyde, Morrissey does not disclose, describe, or contemplate the electroplating of
semiconductor chips.@ See Brief, page 7. For the reasons stated above, we find this
argument no more persuasive than the previous arguments. The claimed subject matter is
directed to Aan electrolytic solution@ which solution is not novel.
In light of the aforesaid analysis we conclude that the rejections on the grounds of
anticipation of the Aelectrolytic solution@ are sustained. We also sustain the rejection of
claim 14 as the sole argument offered by the appellants in that it is allowable as claim 1 is
allowable.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007