Appeal No. 2005-0767
Application No. 09/817,694
Appealed claims 1-5, 12 and 16 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Shacham-Diamand.1
Appellants submit at page 3 of the Brief that "[c]laims 1-5,
12, 16, and 17 stand or fall together." Accordingly, even though
the Argument section of appellants' Brief includes a discussion
of claims 2, 12 and 16, the examiner has properly concluded that
claims 1-5, 12, 16 and 17 stand or fall together. Accordingly,
we will limit our consideration to the examiner's rejection of
claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants' arguments
for patentability. However, we concur with the examiner that the
claimed subject matter is described in the prior art within the
meaning of § 102. Accordingly, we will sustain the examiner's
rejection for essentially those reasons expressed in the Answer.
Appellants do not dispute the examiner's factual
determination that Shacham-Diamand, like appellants, describes a
method for the controlled electroless plating of uniform metal
layers onto exposed metallizations in integrated circuits by
1 Although the examiner's statement of the rejection at
page 3 of the Answer does not include claim 17, it is clear from
the examiner's discussion of the rejection and from appellants'
Brief that claim 17 stands rejected along with claims 1-5, 12,
and 16. Also, we note that page 1 of the Final Rejection,
paragraph 6, lists claim 17 as finally rejected.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007