Appeal No. 2000-1754
Application No. 08/748,893
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse both the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 7, and
14 and also the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 3 through
23.
We turn first, as we must, to the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102. "It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim." In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ
136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GMBH v. American Hoist and Derrick , 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ
481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The examiner asserts (Final
Rejection, pages 5-6) that Hawthorne discloses each and every
element of claims 1, 7, and 14, pointing, in particular, to
element 120 to meet the claimed compliant bumps. Appellants
argue (Brief, page 4) that Hawthorne's element 120 is a flexible
tape with metal traces formed thereon, not compliant bumps. We
agree with appellants.
The examiner (Answer, pages 3-4) quotes a dictionary
definition of "bump," and concludes that Hawthorne's flexible
tape meets the aforementioned definition. However, the examiner
fails to explain how he reached such a conclusion. We do not
understand how the flexible tape complies with the quoted
definition. Hawthorne shows no "relatively abrupt convexity or
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007