Appeal No. 1997-3155
Application No. 08/424,828
with convincing evidence or arguments. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The
obviousness of the claimed invention is thereafter determined
based upon the evidence as a whole and the relative
persuasiveness of the arguments.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 6) that “Aoki does not
disclose or suggest a single bond wire that is affixed to a
support means on the die paddle at an intermediate position on
the wire as recited in claim 1.” Appellants also argue
(Brief, page 7) that:
Aoki explicitly teaches that as a single wire
becomes long, it may be beneficial to divide the
wire into two short wires, each bonded to a relay
pad (col. 1, lines 53-63). Therefore, the express
teachings of Aoki would direct a person of ordinary
skill in the art to use two short wires as shown.
Accordingly, Aoki literally teach[es] away from the
present invention and a prima facie case of
obviousness has not been established.
The mere fact that Aoki took a continuous wire and cut it
into two pieces is evidence that Aoki clearly did not have any
desire to work with a single piece of bond wire that spanned
the distance between the die and a lead finger of the lead
frame. Aoki’s teachings, therefore, run counter to the
approach taken by appellants. Thus, the only teaching or
suggestion of record that discloses a support means for
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007