Appeal 2006-2265
Application 10/375,333
establishes the equivalence of polystyrene and glass cores in metal coated
conductive particles in this art. This provides the requisite motivation for
making the substitution for the core material of Cranston or Kang. See In re
Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982)(“Express
suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to
render such substitution obvious”). We also note the preference taught by
Watanabe for using polystyrene core materials with a conductive metal or
solder coating (Watanabe, col. 4, ll. 22-32).2
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the totality of the
record, including due consideration of Appellants’ arguments, we determine
that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily in favor of
obviousness within the meaning of § 103(a). Therefore we affirm the
Examiner’s rejections of claim 12 under § 103(a) over Cranston or Kang in
view of McArdle or Watanabe.
2 We further note that Kang teaches that the prior art has used electrically conductive particles which were
“plastic balls coated with nickel or gold,” i.e., an organic composition coated with a conductive metal (see
Kang, col. 2, ll. 62-63).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007