Appeal 2007-0888
Application 10/083,588
coatings have corrosion resistant properties, a person of ordinary skill in this
art who was interested in the corrosion resistance property would have been
motivated to use the parylene coating in place of the silicone corrosion
resistant composition in the method of coating a bonding capillary described
in Gilding.
Appellant further argues that since the parylene composition is worn
away from the surface and results in a residual parylene composition that
inhibits corrosion, the resulting invention would not achieve the object of the
present invention to inhibit the buildup to contaminate deposits on the
surface of the wire bonding capillary (Br. 9). Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive because the cited references provide motivation for applying a
parylene composition to the bonding tool of Gilding. The coated bonding
tool would have the same properties as argued by Appellant. The motivation
to combine or modify the references does not have to be identical to that of
Appellant’s to establish obviousness.
We are convinced by these circumstances that a reasonable
expectation of success exists for the Examiner’s proposed combination of
the Gilding and Evans teachings. Therefore, the record before us, on
balance, establishes an unpersuasively-rebutted prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to each of the Examiner’s rejection.
Conclusion of Law
Based on the record of this appeal, one with ordinary skill in this art
would have had a reasonable expectation that a method for preparing a wire
capillary tip having a pressing face, wherein the pressing face of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013