Appeal No. 2002-0843
Application No. 09/611,182
hydroxide. In particular, Rhoda discloses that "[t]he special
bath provided in accordance with the invention may be considered,
particularly with reference to platinum, as a solution in aqueous
sodium (or potassium) hydroxide of a platinum salt" (column 5,
lines 30-33). Rhoda simply provides no teaching that any other
salt of platinum can be used in the disclosed electroless plating
process. Consequently, since Chang is directed to the deposition
of platinum only, and not a platinum alloy, we cannot agree with
the examiner that the collective teachings of Rhoda and Chang
would have suggested the use of the presently claimed plating
solution for depositing a platinum-rhodium alloy.
As for separately rejected claims 3 and 22, the examiner
does not rely upon JP '168 or Ishihara for teaching the
deficiency of the combined teachings of Rhoda and Chang discussed
above.
This application is remanded to the examiner to consider a
rejection of the appealed claims, as well as the allowed claims,
over JP '168. Appellants' specification, at page 4, acknowledges
that JP '168 "teaches a process for electroless plating of
platinum-rhodium alloy onto a substrate using an aqueous plating
bath comprising a platinum and rhodium as ammine chlorides,
hydroxylamine salt as a stabilizer and the hydrazine as a
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007