Appeal No. 1998-1539
Application No. 08/683,186
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter of independent claim 5 which has not been overcome by
appellants in the form of arguments or objective evidence. We
will sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We now turn to dependent claims 8 and 9.
We will not sustain the rejection of these claims because
the examiner has simply failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of these
claims. In fact, other than a glancing reference to the
“disk” nature of the cooling layer (at page 3 of the answer,
the examiner says that Jenkins taught a “heat removal disk-
shaped metal layer”), the examiner never even mentions
dependent claims 8 and 9. The examiner has not identified
what is being relied on in the applied references for the
teaching of the claimed subject matter. No such identification
is made in either the statement of the rejection and rationale
therefor or in the “Response to argument” section of the
answer. While it is not entirely clear whether appellants are
arguing the merits of these claims, since appellants merely
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007