Appeal No. 2001-0687
Application No. 09/080,070
to the package, with palladium, the instant claim language is
met.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1, as
well as claims 3, 13 and 14, dependent thereon and not separately
argued, under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will also sustain the rejection of claims 5, 7, 9, 11 and
15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because of additional limitations
appearing in these claims, the examiner further applied Casati to
show the obviousness of employing mold members to support an
object being encapsulated. The examiner reasonably explained, at
pages 4 and 5 of the answer, why the combination of references is
believed to make the instant claimed subject unpatentable within
the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In response, appellants merely set forth, at pages 5 and 6
of the principal brief, a recitation of elements appearing in
these claims and a general allegation that “[n]o such combination
of steps either alone or in combination with the claims from
which they depend are taught or suggested by [the references].”
Thus, appellants do not set forth any arguments specifically
pointing to errors in the examiner’s rationale for the rejection.
Since appellants have not convinced us of any error in the
examiner’s rejection, by specifically indicating where the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007