Appeal No. 98-0457
Application 08/604,813
USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966)). In addition, not only should the
specific teachings of each reference be considered, but also
the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably
have been expected to draw therefrom (In re Preda, 401 F.2d
825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)).
Applying these principles to the obviousness issue
presented in this appeal, we find, based on our reading of
the “Background” section on page 1 of the specification
(AAPA), that it was known prior to appellants’ invention that
semiconductor wafers are susceptible to damage if contacted by
moisture, and that, in order to combat this problem, such
items were typically stored and transported in some type of
moisture barrier packaging (specification, page 1, lines 7-
12). We further find that it was known to provide such
moisture barrier packaging in the form of a bag made entirely
from an opaque material having an ultra-low moisture
transmission rate, one such material being a laminate made by
vapor depositing aluminum on clear acrylar polymer sheet, but
that a recognized deficiency of this type of bag was that its
contents could only be optically confirmed by opening the bag,
thereby compromising its moisture barrier integrity
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007