Appeal No. 2002-0942 Page 3
Application No. 09/553,715
the claims under appeal. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 3 and 5 to 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination
follows.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562
(CCPA 1972).
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, reads as follows:
A method for producing a capacitor embedded in a printed circuit board
comprising the steps of
selecting a first conductor foil and a second conductor foil;
forming clearance holes in said first and second conductor foils;
selecting a dielectric material;
coating the dielectric material on at least one side of the first conductor foil
to a thickness of approximately 0.0015 inch; and
layering the coated foil with said second conductor foil with clearance
holes on top of the coating of dielectric material thereby to form a capacitive
structure for being embedded in a printed circuit board.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007