Appeal No. 2002-0843
Application No. 09/611,182
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we find that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed
subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejections.
Rhoda, the examiner's primary reference, discloses the
electroless plating of a platinum-rhodium alloy but, as
appreciated by the examiner, the reference does not disclose the
use of the claimed platinum salt in the plating solution. To
remedy this deficiency the examiner relies upon Chang's
disclosure of employing platinum diammine dinitrite in the
electroless plating of platinum. According to the examiner,
"[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use
the platinum diammine dinitrite of Chang et al., as the platinum
salt material in Rhoda et al., with the expectation of providing
the desired electroless plating results" (page 4 of Answer,
second paragraph).
The flaw in the examiner's reasoning is that Rhoda provides
no teaching or suggestion that platinum salts, in general, can be
used in the electroless deposition of a platinum-rhodium alloy.
Rather, Rhoda focuses specifically on a singular platinum
compound for use in the plating solution, namely, platinum IV
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007