Appeal No. 2000-1754
Application No. 08/748,893
protuberance." At best, Hawthorne shows a gradually curved
convex surface with metal traces formed thereon. Thus, Hawthorne
fails to disclose every element of the claim, and we cannot
sustain the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 7, and 14.
Regarding the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 3
through 23, the examiner (Final Rejection, pages 7-8) describes
the disclosures of the three references and then (Final
Rejection, pages 8-9 draws the conclusion that it would have been
obvious to combine the three references,
because each is used to test an electric device such as
a display device using contact bump or bumps mounted on
a support structure and interfaced to a testing device.
Moreover, the method described in claim 7 is considered
the obvious method of using the apparatus and the
limitations of claims 3-6, 8-13 and 15-23 are
considered inherent in the above combination or within
the normal range of operating the apparatus of the
above combination.
The examiner points to no specific portions of Ardezzone and
Hawthorne for teachings or suggestions to modify Feigenbaum and
provides no explanation as to why it would have been obvious to
do so.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is required to make the factual determinations set forth
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007