Appeal No. 96-2404
Application No. 08/112,446
For these reasons, we will sustain the examiner’s section
103 rejection of claims 1 through 6, 8 through 11 and 17.
We will also sustain the examiner’s rejection of
separately grouped and argued claim 7. It may be true, as
noted by the appellants, that the applied prior art does not
show first and second recesses which have square and circular
cross-sections as required by this claim. Nevertheless, the
UK reference plainly shows first and second recesses having
the cross-sections necessary to receive the IC module to be
placed therein (e.g., see Figures 2 through 4 of this
reference). We conclude, therefore, that it would have been
obvious for an ordinarily skilled artisan to provide the
recesses of the UK reference with whatever cross-sections
might be necessary to receive a particular IC module including
the here claimed square and circular cross-sections to thereby
receive an IC module having corresponding square and circular
shapes.
The examiner’s section 103 rejection of claims 15 and 16
will likewise be sustained notwithstanding the appellants’
argument that the applied prior art fails to show the features
defined by these claims. As correctly pointed out by the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007