Appeal No. 96-0289
Application 07/935,301
current passed through the link melts the metal (page 5; Fig. 2). Fujita does not state that the current is
programming current. However, appellants acknowledge that it was known in the art to melt such links
by use of programming current. Also, the examiner argues that Takemae discloses (col. 5, lines 55-3
62) use of programming current to melt fuse links (final rejection, paper no. 10, page 3), and appellants
do not challenge this argument (brief, page 7).
Appellants argue that Fujita’s metal is not absorbed by a polysilicon pad (brief, pages 5-9).
We are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons given above regarding the rejection of claim 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). See Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (“Whether the
rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35
U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by
the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.”).
For the above reasons, we conclude, based on the preponderance of the evidence and
argument in the record, that appellants’ claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.4
3It is axiomatic that our consideration of the prior art must, of necessity, include consideration
of the admitted state of the art. See In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039-40, 228 USPQ 685, 686
(Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Davis, 305 F.2d 501, 503, 134 USPQ 256, 258 (CCPA 1962).
4A discussion of Choi is not necessary to our decision.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007