Appeal No. 2002-0932
Application No. 09/510,533
evidence of obviousness in this appeal. Therefore, upon return
of this application to the jurisdiction of the examiner, the
examiner should consider Zhong, along with the evidence of record
and any additional evidence, to determine if electroless Ni
plating is equivalent to electroless NiP plating.
Additionally, the examiner should reconsider the scope of at
least claims 1, 2, 11-14 and 19, since claim language during
prosecution before the examiner should be construed as broadly as
reasonably possible, as read in light of the specification and
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997). The above listed claims do not specify an apparatus
including a fluorine-containing polymer but are generic to an
apparatus including any polymeric material “substantially
resistant to degradation by contact with the elevated temperature
electroless plating bath” (e.g., see claim 1). These types of
polymers are defined by appellants as ones which do not release
“soluble, low molecular weight, carbon-containing species into
the electroless plating bath, which species promote nodule
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007