Appeal No. 2006-0562
Application No. 09/952,588
control the magnitude of the current since nothing in the structure would change.
Again, appellants assert that Seshita “...does not disclose that the bond wires are
positioned on the pins to control the magnitude of high frequency current delivered to
the bond pads as recited in claim 39 . . . Thus, the placement of the bond wires in
Seshita has nothing to do with controlling a magnitude of high frequency current.” (brief,
pg. 13). Here again, we find no limitation in independent claim 39 which limits the
structure of the amplifying device to distinguish the structure from Seshita. We do not
agree with appellants’ argument that the process of placement of the bond wire
distinguishes the structure from Seshita. Therefore, we do not find the argument
persuasive, and we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 39 and dependent
claims 40 and 45.
35 U.S.C. § 103
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 the reference teachings would appear to be
sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the relevant art having the references before him to
make the proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner, 458 F.2d
1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the conclusion that the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007