Appeal No. 1998-2907
Application No. 08/471,748
the prior art and Roylance et al, since Greiff et al teaches
the benefits of a transducer with a cover that extends over an
accelerometer to isolate and protect it." Later, the examiner
asserts (Answer, page 6) that the steps of providing a first
and a second layer of glass or metal and heating to
hermetically seal them would have been obvious because
"Roylance shows glass cover and Greiff shows metal layers."
First, we note that we find no benefits of using a cover
over an accelerometer disclosed in the portion of Greiff
relied upon by the examiner. Second, the examiner has
provided no explanation as to how one would combine the
structures of Greiff and Roylance to arrive at the claimed
invention. As pointed out by appellants (Brief, page 8), that
Roylance discloses a glass cover and Greiff discloses metal
layers "does not suggest that it would have been obvious to
form these layers in a cap and in a substrate and then bond
them together to form a hermetic seal." Accordingly, with no
reason to combine the references, the examiner fails to set
forth a prima facie case of obviousness, and we cannot sustain
the rejection of claims 15 and 39 through 41.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007