Ex Parte Schulz-Harder

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 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. Â§ 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 650Â° 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. Â§ 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