Appeal No. 2003-2138
Application No. 09/710,314
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 11, mailed Mar. 27, 2003) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejection, and to appellants’ brief (Paper No. 10, filed Feb. 10, 2003) for appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellants argue that in contrast to the claimed invention, the process of
Fukutomi involves the plating of a nickel layer on a copper foil and then a mask and
wiring film is applied, while the claimed invention requires a mask film selectively formed
on the front of a metal substrate, followed by depositing a nickel film underlayer and a
wiring film. Appellants additionally argue that a base is not formed on the front surface
of the metal substrate, but instead the base is formed after the metal substrate has
been removed. (See brief at page 3.) We agree with appellants. As pointed out
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007