Appeal No. 1998-0096
Application No. 08/518,182
a method of forming a bonded structure whose patentability
possibly depends only on the shape of the polymer body. Mere
change in shape is obvious as a matter of choice, absent
persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant
and unexpected. Undoubtedly, unexpected results over the
prior art may in some cases be persuasive of unobviousness;
however, the burden is on appellants to show it by objective
evidence. Neither data of comparative tests nor other
objective evidence is offered here. What is given here is
only a conclusory statement of counsel that “[t]he circular
shape has distinct advantages in ease of manufacture and
reliability especially for adhesion of a metal coating on the
bump” (Brief, page 17). Counsel’s conclusory statements do
not suffice. Thus, appellants’ rebuttal is not persuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain 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 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 10 Based on the
Combination of Fujimoto and Kanakarajan, or in the
Alternative,
the Combination of Fujimoto, Saito (JP4-6841) and Kanakarajan
21
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007