Appeal 2006-2265
Application 10/375,333
phase metal” (Br. 4). Appellants argue that while it is true that the
acceptable metal may have a lower melting point than the second phase
organic material, it is not required (id.). Appellants argue that the Examiner
cannot pick and choose from a given reference, and there is no suggestion in
any of the references concerning the relationship of the various melting
points (Br. 4-5).
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive. The Examiner has
presented technical reasoning and evidence to support the position that the
core of the particles must have a higher melting point than the first phase
metal coating, as required by claim 12 on appeal, since both Cranston and
Kang teach that the solder coating melts or fuses and metallurgically bonds
while the cores of the particles remain intact and unmelted (Answer 6-7; see
Cranston, col. 2, ll. 52-55, and col. 3, ll. 32-40; and Kang, Figure 3).
Appellants have not rebutted this evidence and reasoning (see the Br. and
Reply Br. in their entirety).
Furthermore, we note that McArdle teaches that various research in
the prior art of anisotropically conductive adhesives employed particles in a
polymeric matrix that were conductive metal or non-conductive particles
(plastic or glass) with a thin metal coat (McArdle, col. 1, ll. 25-31). This
teaching, especially in addition to the teaching at col. 10, ll. 30-37,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007