Appeal No. 1998-0786
Application No. 08/464,118
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). In other words, the burden of producing a factual
basis to support a Section 103 rejection rests on the
examiner. In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173,
177-78 (CCPA 1967). However, on this record, we find that the
examiner has not met his burden of proof.
Contrary to the examiner’s factual finding, for example,
Breen does not teach applying an adhesive film on the pressure
deformable projecting electrodes of a wafer prior to its
cutting. Rather, Breen teaches forming a non-adhesive film 18
on the non-electrode surface of a wafer, prior to cutting or
cracking it into chips. See Breen, column 3, lines 20--31 and
Figures 2 and 3, element 18. Moreover, although the examiner
alleges that the metal projections/bumps of Hatada are either
identical to or essentially identical to the claimed “pressure
deformable projecting electrodes”, the examiner does not refer
to any evidence to support such an allegation. Thus, on this
record, we agree with appellants that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness regarding the
claimed pressure deformable projecting electrodes and the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007