Appeal No. 2003-0636
Application No. 09/599,125
explained above, we find that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have had the requisite motivation to use megasonic energy
with a reasonable expectation of effecting a uniform coating as
well as cleaning of the substrate. As for the spraying technique
of Kobayashi, it is our view that cleaning the substrate would be
an inevitable or inherent result of applying the electroless
plating solution to the substrate.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's § 102
rejection is reversed, as is the examiner's § 103 rejection over
Mallory in view of Lopatin. The examiner's § 103 rejections over
Mallory in view of Lopatin and Reynolds, and over Mallory in view
of Lopatin and Kobayashi, are sustained. A new ground of
rejection is entered under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for claims 1-4, 7,
10-13, 16-19 and 25 over the combined teachings of Lopatin,
Mallory, Reynolds and Kobayashi. Accordingly, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed-in-part and a
new ground of rejection has been entered under 37 CFR § 1.196(b).
In addition to affirming the examiner's rejection of one or
more claims, this decision contains a new ground of rejection
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides, "[a]
new ground of rejection shall not be considered final for
purposes of judicial review."
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007