Appeal No. 2005-1099
Application No. 09/334,974
electrolyte provides for no drops or traces of drops remaining
on the dried object (spot free dryness) and also allows for
recovery of electrolyte. These teachings are sufficient
motivation to utilize this cleaning process, in conjunction with
the kind of cleaning method set forth in Welty.
On page 11 of the brief, appellants again argue that the
combination does not suggest all the claimed features, e.g.,
appellants argue again that Eichholzer does not teach that the
compressed air cleans the surface of the object. For the same
reasons discussed, supra, we disagree.
On pages 12-13 of the brief, appellants again argue the
patentability of claims 65 and 66, using their same reasons,
discussed, supra, in the previous obviousness rejection. Hence,
for the same reasons that we were not convinced by appellants’
aforementioned arguments regarding claims 65 and 66, we are not
convinced here.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 21-24, 26-36, and 65-67
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Welty in view
Eichholzer.
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 10-20 as being
obvious over Welty in view of Eichholzer and further in
view of Pudem
We consider claim 10 in this rejection.
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth
pages 14-17 of the answer. Appellants’ position for this
rejection is set forth on pages 13-14 of the brief, and also on
pages 2-3 of the reply brief.
Appellants’ basic argument is that claim 10 requires an
electroplated copper layer that is coated with an electroplated
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007