Appeal No. 2006-0313
Application 10/300,276
reducing agents are included in the bath . . . such as ammonium hypophosphite, dimethylamine
borate[, that is, dimethylamineborane,] and/or glyoxylic acid” (col. 6, ll. 7-15,);” “[t]he bath
may also include one or more . . . chelating agents such as citric acid, ammonium chloride,
glycine, acetic acid and/or malonic acid . . . for, in one respect, complexing copper” (col. 6, ll.
15-19); “may also include organic additives” (col. 6, ll. 19-25); and “[a]n alkaline metal-free
pH adjuster . . . may be included in the bath to achieve a suitable pH range” (col. 6, ll. 25-33).
The principal arguments advanced by appellants focus on the two optional ingredients in
the solutions described by Dubin. We cannot subscribe to appellants’ position because claim 1
encompasses solutions containing additional ingredients as we determined above. The first
optional ingredient is chelating agents, of which only glycine is identified by the examiner as an
ammonia-free complexing/buffering agent specified by claim 1. We find that Dubin directs one
skilled in the art to use one or more of the five listed chelating agents, including glycine, “for
complexing copper” where the cobalt ions are introduced onto a copper surface (col. 6, ll. 15-
19). We find as a matter of fact that one skilled in this art would not have had to choose
judiciously from large group of possible complexing agents in order to select glycine, thus
obtaining the very electroless cobalt plating solutions containing the ammonia-free
complexing/buffering agent glycine encompassed by appealed claim 1. See Sivaramakrishnan,
673 F.2d at 213 USPQ 441; Schaumann, 572 F.2d at 316-17, 197 USPQ at 9-10; Petering, 301
F.2d at 681-82, 133 USPQ at 279-80. With respect to the other optional substituent, organic
additives, we find no disclosure in the written description in appellants’ specification which
establishes that such additives listed by Dubin would materially affect the basic and novel
characteristics of the claimed electroless plating solutions as appellants contend, and indeed,
Dubin teaches one skilled in this art that such ingredients are beneficial in electroless cobalt
plating solutions. We agree with the examiner that Dubin would have described the claimed
electroless solutions to one skilled in this art with and without organic additives.
With respect to the other ingredients specified in claim 1, appellants do not dispute that
the solutions described by Dubin contain a source of cobalt ions in a solvent. Appellants also do
not dispute that the solutions described by Dubin contain a reducing agent falling within the
claimed solutions. Two of the reducing agents listed by Dubin, ammonium hypophosphite and
dimethylamineborane, that is, dimethylamineborane, are disclosed and claimed by appellants
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007