Appeal No. 2003-1980
Application No. 09/351,868
having an insulating substrate. Accordingly, we also conclude
that, based upon the facts of this claim, claim 73 is limited by
its preamble and requires the presence of the metallic layer
plated on a workpiece.
Turning to the cited reference, we observe that it discusses
treating particles of a metal alloy, which particles can range
from 0.001 to 0.5 inch. (Column 1, lines 43-49). We are unable
to discern where treating a metal layer plated on a workpiece is
disclosed. We disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion that “any”
metal material undergoing treatment can be a layer and the
substance upon which that metal rests is a substrate. The
independent claims clearly require the metal layer to be plated
upon the workpiece.
As the examiner has not shown this element of the claimed
invention to be present in the cited prior art, we are constrained
to reverse this rejection.
B. The Rejection of Claims 1-3, 12-16, 19, 20, 66, 71-73, 75-
80, 85, and 86 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Wahlbeck.
The examiner has found that Wahlbeck discloses annealing
copper wire using highly purified deionized water. The wire is
heated and the examiner states that the water would inherently
clean the wire. The examiner also finds that the wire undergoing
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007