Appeal No. 1997-3155
Application No. 08/424,828
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 12 and 18
through 28 is reversed.
Appellants have not taken issue with the examiner’s
finding that Aoki discloses all of the claimed structure
except for an intermediate portion of a continuous bond wire
affixed to the support means (Answer, pages 2 and 3; Brief,
page 6). With respect to such missing limitation, the
examiner concludes (Answer, page 3) that “[t]hough Aoki et al
show bond wire 106 [Figure 1] divided into two wires 206 and
306 [Figure 3] or 18 and 19 [Figure 7] . . . , it would have
been considered obvious to an artisan having ordinary skill in
this art to substitute a single wire having an intermediate
portion bonded to said support because the two wire structure
of Aoki are electrically equivalent and substituting one
equivalent structure for another is well known and commonly
performed in this art.”
Based upon the foregoing, the examiner set forth a prima
facie case of obviousness. As a result thereof, the burden
shifted to appellants to rebut the examiner’s prima facie case
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007