Appeal No. 2000-1787
Application No. 08/646,735
accordingly, is highly relevant prior art with respect to the
claimed invention. While appellants focus upon the lack of a
teaching of repair in the Hargis patent and perceived
deficiencies in the Beers disclosure, like the examiner, our
conclusion is based upon what the combined teachings of the
applied prior art would have suggested to one having ordinary
skill in this particular art. From that perspective, it is clear
that the subject matter of claim 4 would have been obvious and,
thus, the rejection thereof is sound.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hargis in view of
Sarma.
In our opinion, one having ordinary skill in the art would
not have perceived any suggestion from the combined teachings of
Hargis and Sarma to seal any edge of a removed electronic
packaging substrate when practicing the invention of Hargis.
Simply stated, Hargis gives no indication of any concern for the
severed edges of the removed electronic packaging substrate, and
Sarma's application of sealing is remote with respect to the
Hargis teaching.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007