Appeal No. 96-0155
Application No. 07/829,660
advanced concerning any particular claim taken individually.
See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(5)(6)(1993) and Ex parte Schier, 21
USPQ2d 1016, 1019 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991). As a
consequence, we will treat the claims as standing or falling
together in accordance with their groupings in the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
The section 112, first paragraph, rejection of appealed
claims 1 through 25, whether based on the written description
requirement or the enablement requirement, cannot be sustained
for the reasons well stated by the appellants on pages 5
through 7 of their brief.
Concerning the section 103 rejection, the appellants
contend that neither Corrie nor the admitted prior art
contains any teaching or suggestion of the bonding feature or
the handle wafer/support means feature of their rejected
claims and argue that "prior art which doos [sic, does] not
teach or suggest bonding, a handle wafer, nor a bonding
intermediate or binder can [sic, cannot] render obvious claims
specifically reciting bonding a surface of a semiconductor
wafer to either support means or a handle wafer" (brief, page
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007