Appeal No. 1997-1885
Application No. 08/296,671
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of
the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the briefs have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to all of the claims on appeal, the
examiner cites Mahulikar ’299 as teaching a semiconductor
device of the type claimed wherein the integrated circuit is
packaged between a metal base and a metal cap. Mahulikar ’292
is cited as teaching a similar package in which a plastic cap
is used instead of the metal cap. This combination does not
teach the plastic cap being in direct contact with the
integrated circuit die. The examiner cites Suzuki as teaching
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007