Appeal No. 1998-0096
Application No. 08/518,182
Accordingly, it is evident that Fujimoto does not
disclose every limitation of claim 8. Therefore, we do not
sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 8.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejections of Claims 7,
10 through 12, 15 through 18 and 25
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 7, 11,
15 and 18 Based on the Combination of
Fujimoto and Saito (JP4-6841)
The examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d
1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima
facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings of
the prior art references would appear to have suggested the
claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In
re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
The examiner has determined that Saito (JP4-6841)
“teaches that a columnar shaped body and a spherical (hence
circular) shaped cross section are equivalents in a process
comprising a step of providing a metal coated polymer body
composite bump similar to the process of the instant
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007