Appeal No. 2001-0130
Application No. 09/050,491
on the part of the examiner to shift the burden of proof to the
appellants to prove that at least a portion of the alumina
(i.e., inert material) would not inherently or necessarily be in
“floating contact” with at least a portion of the tungsten layer
(i.e., receiving layer). MEHL/Biophile Int’l Corp. v. Milgraum,
192 F.3d 1362, 1366, 52 USPQ2d 1303, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed.
Cir. 1990); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658
(Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,
433-34 (CCPA 1977).
The appellants argue that Park ‘095 discloses a process
where a chip carrier has porous tungsten metallization and
nickel metallization. (Appeal brief, page 22.) This argument
is not persuasive, because appealed claim 1 reads on such a
structure.
The appellants also contend that the ceramic chip carrier
with the tungsten metallization in Park ‘095 is exposed to
ambient air. (Id.) We note, however, that appealed claim 1
reads on the structure described in Park ‘095.
The appellants urge that “Park ‘095 has never taught that
the chip carrier 10, should be positioned so that the tungsten
metallization that is exposed, be facing any nickel layer.”
(Id.) Further, the appellants argue that “the chemistry and
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007