Appeal No. 98-1643
Application No. 08/544,582
Reference is made to the brief and final rejection and
answer for the respective positions of appellant and the
examiner.
OPINION
We affirm.
The examiner appears to rely on two different embodiments
of Leedy as support for the rejection. The examiner relies on
the embodiment of Fig. 4a of the reference for the teaching of
a testing set and, apparently, on the embodiment of Fig. 14 of
the reference for the teaching of a semiconductor chip or
wafer (134) in direct contact with the integrated circuit
under test (133) and having at least one testing function.
We do not agree with appellant’s argument that it is
improper for the examiner to rely on elements of two separate
embodiments of a reference. A rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) requires a disclosure of the claimed subject matter
in a single reference. Leedy is a single reference and we
find no impropriety in relying on different teachings within
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007