Appeal No. 2002-0932
Application No. 09/510,533
have used the Katz Teflon liner with NiP and its substrate in the
Chen process, since the problem of deposition on the equipment
depends on the induction period (see Katz, col. 4, l. 70-col. 5,
l. 21), and the induction period for NiP is not found in this
record. Additionally, we note that Chen teaches that with his
NiP plating process no substantial modification of existing
equipment is necessary (col. 4, ll. 18-28).
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Brief, we
determine that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness in view of Chen and Katz. The remaining
secondary references to Malik and Chiu were cited to show
limitations present in the dependent claims and fail to remedy
the deficiencies discussed above (Answer, pages 5-6).
Accordingly, we reverse all of the examiner’s rejections under
section 103(a) on appeal.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand this application to the jurisdiction of the
examiner for consideration of the following issues. As discussed
above, Zhong has not been considered as part of the examiner’s
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007