Appeal No. 1997-3727
Application 08/416,127
that the Examiner has not shown this “inherency” of the
lateral force. The only force we find, in Sugimoto, being
applied to the chip is by element 7 and that force is
perpendicular to the substrate. We cannot speculate as to
what other prior art may exist to meet claim 1. However, we
are persuaded by Appellants that Sugimoto does not anticipate
claim 1.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 3 to 5 are rejected as being obvious over Sugimoto
and Suda.
As a general proposition in an appeal involving a
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an Examiner is under a burden
to make out a prima facie case of obviousness. If that burden
is met, the burden of going forward 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 In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007