Appeal No. 1997-3727
Application 08/416,127
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).
We take the independent claim 4. Whereas we agree with
the Examiner that Suda shows a groove [6,7] which does form a
back-cut, we do not find the claimed step of “sawing the chip
near the groove ....” We agree with Appellants [brief, page
7] that “[n]ot only is the [sawing] step ... not disclosed in
any cited art, but neither reference, alone or in combination,
suggests that performing this step is at all desirable.” In
fact, this type of sawing would be counter to the objective of
suda’s invention of producing chips out of a wafer, not
destroying them. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 4 and its grouped claims 3 and 5 over
Sugimoto and Suda.
In conclusion, we reverse the Examiner’s final rejection
of claims 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Sugimoto. Further, we
reverse the obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007