Appeal No. 95-2483
Application 08/098,008
line of reasoning advanced by the examiner with respect to the
artisan=s knowledge are a part of the determination of the
obviousness of the referenced claimed subject matter as well as
expressed or implied teachings and suggestions from Lai itself.
Additionally, appellants have presented no reasons traversing our
findings from our earlier opinion as to these claims.
We treat separately the remaining claims. The subject
matter of dependent claim 34 is obvious for the same reasons as
we articulated from our earlier discussion of claim 15, and
claim 35 appears redundant with the subject matter of its parent
claim 15.
The rejection of dependent claim 36 is affirmed for the same
reasons we expressed earlier with respect to our affirmance of
the rejection of claims 1 and 15. It is implicit within our
affirmance of the rejection of independent claims 1 and 15, as
well as dependent claim 36, that we find no patentable
distinction alone in the mere Aformation@ or Adeposition@ of
anything on another material in the integrated circuit art.
First of all, no such process limitation is argued with respect
to this language in the product claims on appeal. The normal
placement in the art of the unlabeled bond leads in Figure 2 of
Lai and in the art is clearly enough in our judgment to meet the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007