Ex parte COLE et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 93-1883                                                          
          Application No. 07/759,691                                                  


          Eichelberger et al. (Eichelberger ‘695)      4,783,695      Nov.            
          08, 1988                                                                    
                                                  (filed Sep. 26, 1986)               
          Chihara et al. (Chihara)                     4,745,018      May             
          17, 1988                                                                    
                                                  (filed Sep. 08, 1987)               
          Werth                                   0 233 755      Aug. 26,             
          1987                                                                        
          (Published European Patent Application)                                     
          Bry et al., (Bry) IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin,“Reusable               
          Chip Test Package,” Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 1476 and 1477,                      
          (September 1979)(hereinafter referred to as “Bry”).                         

          Appellants’ admitted prior art as seen from the specification               
          at page 2, line 24 to page 3, line 5; page 4, line 15 to page               
          5, line 12; page 10, lines 14 to 17; page 15, lines 25-29; and              
          page 16, lines 7 to 16 (hereinafter referred to as                          
          “appellants’ admitted prior art”).                                          
               The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103               
          as follows:                                                                 
               (1) Claims 2, 4 and 11 through 13 as unpatentable over                 
          Bry in combination with Eichelberger ‘122 further taken with                
          either Jones or appellants’ admitted prior art;                             
               (2) Claim 3 as unpatentable over Bry in combination with               
          Eichelberger ‘122 further taken with either Jones or                        
          appellants’ admitted prior art as applied to claims 2, 4 and                
          11 through 13 above, and further in view of either Chihara or               
          Werth; and                                                                  

                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007