Appeal No. 96-0380
Application No. 08/229,857
Examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to the claimed invention by the express
teachings or suggestions found in the prior art, or by
implications contained in such teachings or suggestions. In
re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir.
1983). "Additionally, when determining obviousness, the
claimed
invention should be considered as a whole; there is no legally
recognizable 'heart' of the invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v.
SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237,
1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996)
citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Appellants argue on page 5 of the brief that Burn teaches
away from Appellants' invention in that Burns teaches gang
bonding the inner ends of leads 22 to intraconnect
metalization on the semiconductor die, then gang bonding the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007