Ex Parte Schulz-Harder

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 3, 2013

10506611 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/506,611 07/06/2005 Jurgen Schulz-Harder A-9215 8471
20741 7590 09/03/2013
Welsh Flaxman & Gitler
2000 Duke Street , Suite 100
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
MEHTA, MEGHA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1781
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JURGEN SCHULZ-HARDER
____________

Appeal 2012-007932
Application 10/506,611
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before EDWARD C. KIMLIN, HUBERT C. LORIN, and LINDA M.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 13-
17, 20, 22, 24, and 26-28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A process for producing a metal-ceramic substrate comprising a
ceramic layer and a structured metal layer with conductive tracks and
contact surfaces on at least one surface side of the ceramic layer and at least
one brazing resist coating applied to the structured metal layer, the process
comprising the following steps:

Appeal 2012-007932
Application 10/506,611

2
a) applying at least one metal foil to at least one surface side of the
ceramic layer by high temperature bonding at a bonding process temperature
higher than 650° C for forming at least one metal layer on the ceramic layer,

b) structuring the at least one metal layer on at least one surface side
of the ceramic layer for forming the structured metal layer with conductive
tracks and contact surfaces,

c) applying the at least one brazing resist coating to the structured
metal layer, the at least one brazing resist coating having a thickness of
between 0.5 and 100 microns and

d) after applying the at least one brazing resist coating to the
structured metal layer, removing some metal from the structured metal layer
in an amount of 0.1-29 microns at least in surface areas bordering the
brazing resist coating, and

e) leaving the brazing resist coating on the structured metal layer.

The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
obviousness:
Langdon et al. (Langdon) 3,429,029 Feb. 25, 1969
Gulla et al. (Gulla) 4,810,333 Mar. 7, 1989
Schulz-Harder 5,676,855 Oct. 14, 1997
Sakuraba et al. (Sakuraba) 6,054,762 Apr. 25, 2000
Saul et al. (Saul) 6,290,388 B1 Sep. 18, 2001
Kim et al. (Kim) 6,627,384 B1 Sep. 30, 2003

Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a process for making a
metal-ceramic substrate comprising a structured metal layer with conductive
tracks and contact surfaces on at least one surface of the ceramic layer, and a
brazing resist coating applied to the structured metal layer, wherein some
metal from the structured metal layer is removed in surface areas bordering
the brazing resist coating.
Appeal 2012-007932
Application 10/506,611

3
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
follows:
(a) claims 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 20, 24, and 26 over Sakuraba in view of Kim
and Saul,
(b) claims 13-15 over Sakuraba in view of Kim, Saul, and Gulla,
(c) claims 16, 17, 27, and 28 over Sakuraba in view of Kim, Saul, and
Langdon and,
(d) claim 22 over Sakuraba in view of Kim, Saul, and Schulz-Harder.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced by
the Appellant and the Examiner. In so doing, we find ourselves in
agreement with Appellant that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the Examiner's rejections.
The flaw in the Examiner's rejection is that, contrary to the Examiner's
statement, Sakuraba, the primary reference, fails to disclose or suggest
applying a brazing resist coating to a structured metal layer (the Examiner
cites column 3, lines 4-5). Sakuraba teaches applying a paste of an active
metallic brazing material to the entire surface of the ceramic substrate in
order to join a copper plate to the ceramic substrate. Hence, the reference
teaches applying the brazing material uniformly to the ceramic substrate, not
to a structured metal layer, and the "etching resist" referenced by the
Examiner is not disclosed as a brazing material.
The Examiner also cites Sakuraba at column 3, lines 33-34, for
applying a brazing resist coating to a structured metal layer. However, the
second and third resist layers disclosed by the reference are not described as
Appeal 2012-007932
Application 10/506,611

4
brazing materials. Consequently, the Examiner's legal conclusion of
obviousness is founded upon factual error.
The secondary references applied by the Examiner do not remedy the
deficiency of Sakuraba outlined above.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we are constrained to reverse
the Examiner's rejections.
REVERSED

cam