Appeal 2006-2671
Application 09/508,572
7, 10, 13, and 15 with respect to both grounds of rejection and further on
claim 14 with respect to the first ground of rejection. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
Appellants do not contest whether one of ordinary skill in the art
would have combined either of Merchant or MacNaughton with Ninomiya
with respect to replacing the ceramic bodies of the semiconductor devices of
Merchant and of MacNaughton with a porous ceramic body having cavities
infiltrated by a metallic substance (Answer 3-4 and 5; Br. 3-4 and 7-8).
Thus, the issues on appeal are whether the Examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness by showing that one of ordinary skill in this art
would have found in the disclosure of each of Merchant and MacNaughton
the other limitations of claims 7, 10, 13, 14, and 15.
With respect to the other limitations in claim 7, the Examiner
contends the ceramic body of each of Merchant and MacNaughton is
covered by a metal skin that has at least one area of reduced layer thickness
forming at least one depression for accommodating components of a micro
hybrid integrated circuit, citing ceramic body 10, metal layer 20, and
depression 14 in Fig. 4 of Merchant, and ceramic body 10, metal layer 18,
and depression 14 in Fig. 3 of MacNaughton (Answer 3, 5, and 6-7). With
respect to claim 10, the Examiner contends the claimed between about 0.1
mm and 0.2 mm thickness of the area of reduced thickness of the metal layer
would have been determined by routine experimentation by one of ordinary
skill in this art based on the desired end result with respect to the teachings
of Merchant or of MacNaughton (id. 4 and 5-6).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013