Appeal No. 2002-0932
Application No. 09/510,533
plating vessel of Katz in the electroless NiP plating process of
Chen, with the expectation of achieving the desired results of
Chen and the additional benefit of preventing deposition on the
plating equipment surfaces as shown by Katz (id.). We disagree.
As correctly argued by appellants (Brief, page 13), the
examiner’s contention that electroless nickel and electroless NiP
plating processes are “chemically and functionally very similar”
is not factually supported in the record before us. See In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002)(“This factual question of motivation is material to
patentability, and could not be resolved on subjective belief and
unknown authority.”). Contrary to the examiner’s contention
(Answer, page 4), the environments are not the “same” but, as
shown by appellants (Brief, paragraph bridging pages 11-12) and
the art of record, NiP plating processes include a reducing agent
such as the hypophosphite ion and deposit a NiP compound, not
elemental nickel metal.
We note that the examiner discusses Zhong et al. (Zhong),
U.S. Patent No. 6,106,927, issued Aug. 22, 2000 (filed Jul. 27,
1998), previously made of record, as evidence that electroless Ni
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007