Appeal No. 2006-0264
Application No. 10/217,064
process-bath components." The examiner questions what is
required of this step and "[i]s this limitation merely the
inherent result of adding the regenerating solutions?" (page 3 of
Answer, second paragraph). However, we agree with the appellants
that the criticized claim language would be readily understood by
one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the present
specification. Clearly, appellants claim that the independent
regulation of the lead concentration is the result of the
sequential addition of the three regenerating solutions. The
examiner has not given any reason to question "whether more is
required" (id.). We note the examiner's statement that the
appealed claims are treated as if the independent regulation of
the lead concentration is the inherent result of the sequential
addition of the regenerating solutions, and appellants do not
take issue with the examiner's interpretation.
We now turn to the examiner's § 103 rejections. As
explained by the examiner, van der Putten, like appellants,
discloses a method for depositing an adhesion-promoting layer on
a spatially bounded aluminum metallic layer of a chip by a wet-
chemical plating process using a multi-component bath that
includes the claimed components, including a lead stabilizer. As
acknowledged by the examiner, van der Putten does not expressly
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007