Appeal 2007-1209
Application 10/763,979
atoms, such as ascorbic acid, isoascorbic acid, glucoascorbic acid and
glucoronic acid. The pH of the solution is between 3.5 and 5.5 and the ratio
of the complexing agent to the metal ion is between about 2:1 and 9:1.
According to Appellant, the recited ranges for pH and complexing
agent/metal ion ratio avoids significant agglomeration of substrates during
the electroplating process while also avoiding damage to the sensitive, non-
electroplatable portion of the substrate.
Appealed claims 19 and 21-37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
(a) as being unpatentable of JP '588.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of Appellant's arguments for
patentability, as well as the declaration evidence relied upon in support
thereof. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner that the
claimed method would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
within the meaning of § 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for emphasis.
There is no dispute that JP '588, like Appellant, discloses a method for
electroplating a metal deposit on a substrate with a solution comprising
water, the appropriate metal ion and a complexing agents that is an organic
compound having between four and 18 carbon atoms and at least two
hydroxyl groups and a five or six membered ring that contains at least one
oxygen atom, such as the presently claimed ascorbic acid, isoascorbic acid,
dehydroascorbic acid, glucoascrobic acid, galacturonic acid, glucoronic acid,
or salts thereof. JP '588 does not specifically teach the claimed ranges for
pH and ratio of complexing agent to metal ion. However, as explained by
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013