11049774 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 15, 2011)

Ex Parte Mashino

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 15, 2011

11049774 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 15, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ________________ Ex parte NAOHIRO MASHINO ________________ Appeal 2010-003350 Application 11/049,774 Technology Center 1700 ________________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 12 and 14-20, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Invention The Appellants claim a method for plasma treating a molded resin article with a hydrophilic gas, and a method for forming a wiring pattern Appeal 2010-003350 Application 11/049,774 2 comprising plasma treatment with a hydrophilic gas. Claims 1 and 8 are illustrative: 1. A hydrophilic treatment method, comprising: performing a plasma treatment on a molded article made of a resin, wherein when hydrophilicity is imparted to said molded article, the plasma treatment is performed at atmospheric pressure in an atmosphere containing a hydrophilic gas that has a hydrophilic group and which gas is selected from the group consisting of an alcohol, an organic matter having a carboxylic group, and combinations thereof. 8. A wiring pattern forming method comprising: forming a mask layer made of a resin on a metallic film formed on the entirety of a surface of one side of a resin substrate; subsequently performing patterning on said mask layer to thereby form groove portions each having a bottom surface, from which said metallic film is exposed, according to a wiring pattern to be formed; subsequently performing a plasma treatment on a surface of one side of said resin substrate, in which said groove portions are formed, at atmospheric pressure in an atmosphere containing a hydrophilic gas that has a hydrophilic group and which gas is selected from the group consisting of an alcohol, an organic matter having a carboxylic group, and combinations thereof; and subsequently performing electrolytic plating using said metallic film as an electric power supplying layer so that said groove portions are filled with metal the thereby form a wiring pattern. The References Ueno (as translated) JP 02-123140 A May 10, 1990 Dinter 4,929,319 May 29, 1990 Okada 5,419,968 May 30, 1995 Uchiyama 5,543,017 Aug. 6, 1996 Iwata 5,858,472 Jan. 12, 1999 Spence 5,895,558 Apr. 20, 1999 Hamilton 6,194,062 B1 Feb. 27, 2001 Horiuchi 2001/0017221 A1 Aug. 30, 2001 Yasuyoshi (as translated) 2003-045871 A Feb. 14, 2003 Appeal 2010-003350 Application 11/049,774 3 The Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows: claims 1, 5 and 7 over Ueno in view of either Uchiyama or Spence, claims 2 and 14 over Ueno in view of either Uchiyama or Spence, further in view of Dinter, claims 8 and 12 over Horikawa in view of Ueno and either Uchiyama or Spence, claim 9 over Horikawa in view of Ueno and either Uchiyama or Spence, further in view of Dinter, claim 15 over Ueno in view of either Uchiyama or Spence, further in view of Dinter and Horiuchi, claim 16 over Ueno in view of either Uchiyama or Spence, further in view of Dinter and Iwata, claims 17 and 18 over Ueno in view of either Uchiyama or Spence, further in view of Dinter and Okada, and claims 19 and 20 over Ueno in view of either Uchiyama or Spence, further in view of Dinter and Hamilton. OPINION We reverse the rejections. Issue Has the Appellant indicated reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the combined disclosures of Ueno and either Uchiyama or Spence would have rendered prima facie obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, treatment at atmospheric pressure in an atmosphere containing an alcohol? Findings of Fact Ueno plasma treats a polyolefin resin with steam and alcohol vapor to improve its wettability and adhesiveness (pp. 4-5). The treatment is at low temperature under a vacuum of 0.1 to 1 Torr “in view of the heat resistance of the polyolefin resin” (pp. 4, 6-7). Appeal 2010-003350 Application 11/049,774 4 Uchiyama plasma treats plastics or fibers at atmospheric pressure to provide them with hydrophilicity (col. 1, ll. 10-15). The treatment is with a gaseous mixture comprising water vapor, argon and optionally helium, hydrogen or a small amount of a water soluble ketone such as acetone or methylethylketone (col. 2, ll. 8-13; col. 3, ll. 3-8). Spence plasma treats webs and films at atmospheric pressure to enhance their properties, especially their wettability and printability (col. 2, ll. 9-26). The treatment is “with a variety of gases, typically inert gases like helium and argon, active gases like oxygen and nitrogen, and more complex gaseous molecules like carbon dioxide and ammonia” (col. 3, ll. 14-17). “Gases may be used in mixtures (of two or more gases), including air, or a single gas with oxygen or some other suitable gas” (col. 3, ll. 17-19). The gaseous mixture can contain “relatively limited proportions of a liquid (e.g., water vapor)” (col. 3, ll. 21-24). Analysis The Appellants argue (Br. 23): “There is no suggestion by Ueno that atmospheric pressure could be used, nor that any of the gases such as those disclosed by Uchiyama or Spence could be used. Furthermore, there is no suggestion by either Uchiyama or Spence that any other gas such as alcohol could be used.” The Examiner argues (Ans. 13): “Uchiyama et al. and Spence are merely relied on to teach that it is known to operate the plasma treatment under atmospheric pressure. While Uchiyama et al. and Spence use different gases, this does not teach away from the concept of performing a plasma treatment under atmospheric pressure. Ueno et al. already teaches the hydrophilic gas of the instant invention, therefore it is not require[d] that Uchiyama et al. and Spence teach the same gases. Appeal 2010-003350 Application 11/049,774 5 For the use of atmospheric pressure in Ueno’s method to have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the applied prior art must be such that it would have provided one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success in carrying out Ueno’s method at that pressure. In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894, 902 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The Examiner has not provided evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had such a reasonable expectation of success. The Examiner appears to be arguing that any plasma treatment for rendering a plastic surface hydrophilic can be carried out at atmospheric pressure regardless of the gas used, and the Examiner has not supported that argument with evidence. The Examiner’s mere speculation is not sufficient for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690 (CCPA 1962). Conclusion of Law The Appellant has indicated reversible error in the Examiner’s determination that the combined disclosures of Ueno and either Uchiyama or Spence would have rendered prima facie obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, treatment at atmospheric pressure in an atmosphere containing an alcohol. DECISION/ORDER The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1, 5 and 7 over Ueno in view of either Uchiyama or Spence, claims 2 and 14 over Ueno in view of either Uchiyama or Spence, further in view of Dinter, claims 8 and 12 over Horikawa in view of Ueno and either Uchiyama or Spence, claim 9 over Appeal 2010-003350 Application 11/049,774 6 Horikawa in view of Ueno and either Uchiyama or Spence, further in view of Dinter, claim 15 over Ueno in view of either Uchiyama or Spence, further in view of Dinter and Horiuchi, claim 16 over Ueno in view of either Uchiyama or Spence, further in view of Dinter and Iwata, claims 17 and 18 over Ueno in view of either Uchiyama or Spence, further in view of Dinter and Okada, and claims 19 and 20 over Ueno in view of either Uchiyama or Spence, further in view of Dinter and Hamilton are reversed. It is ordered that the Examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED tc