Appeal No. 1999-0576
Application No. 08/576,634
appellants could have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered
[see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to independent claims 1, 9 and 13, the examiner cites DiGiacomo as
teaching a method for placing elements on a placement surface. The examiner
acknowledges that DiGiacomo has no teachings related to the temperature and the
thermal events as set forth in the claims. The examiner cites Phillips as teaching the
thermal driven placement of components. The examiner points to various portions of
Phillips and DiGiacomo as teaching the various steps of the claims on appeal. The
examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to modify the teachings of
DiGiacomo with the teachings of Phillips [answer, pages 3-5].
Appellants argue in great detail why the claims on appeal are not obvious over the
teachings of the applied prior art [brief, pages 10-25]. The examiner fails to answer most
of the points raised by appellants in the brief, and the examiner simply refers to the same
passages of the prior art which were referred to in the rejection [answer, pages 10-11].
Appellants respond by highlighting arguments that the examiner failed to address, and by
reemphasizing why the appealed claims are not obvious in view of the applied prior art
[reply brief].
We essentially agree with all the positions set forth by appellants in the briefs. The
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The portions of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007