Appeal 2006-2265
Application 10/375,333
a non-elected invention (Final Office Action dated Aug. 19, 2005, page 2).
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134.
According to Appellants, the invention is directed to a conductive
material used for filling through holes or vias to Z-connect two or more
layers of circuitry or conductor runs, where the conductive material includes
a core-shell material with a core of organic material and a shell of metal, all
dispersed in a liquid media of an organic resin (Br. 2-3). Claim 12 is the
only claim on appeal and a copy of this claim may be found in the “Claim
Appendix” attached to Appellants’ Brief.
The Examiner has relied upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Cranston US 4,902,857 Feb. 20, 1990
McArdle US 5,769,996 Jun. 23, 1998
Kang US 5,837,119 Nov. 17, 1998
Watanabe US 6,328,844 Dec. 11, 2001
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Cranston or Kang in view of McArdle or Watanabe (Answer 3 and 4).1
1 In the interests of judicial economy, we have combined the two rejections stated by the Examiner on
pages 3 and 4 of the Answer into one rejection since these rejections involve the same claim, the same
secondary references applied for the same reasons, and the alternate primary references are relied upon for
the same basic structure (see the Answer 3-4). We also note that Appellants present the same arguments
for each stated rejection (Br. paragraph bridging pages 5-6) and the Examiner states that the issues in each
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007