Appeal No. 1998-1623
Application 08/433,625
recited in Appellants' claim 20. Therefore, we will sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 20, 23, 24, 26 and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 102.
In regard to claims 21, 22, 31 and 32, Appellants argue
on pages 11 and 12 of the brief, that Brady does not teach any
dissociation or diffusion steps as recited in these claims.
In particular, Appellants argue on page 2 of the reply brief
that there is no indication that a relatively low melting
point composition is formed which includes at least one
component from the solder and the component of the carrier pad
nor is there any dissociation and diffusion disclosed.
The Examiner responds on page 5 that Brady does disclose
dissociation and diffusion steps. The Examiner argues that
the intermingling and eventual blending as taught in column 8,
lines 4-8, of Brady meet the dissociation and diffusion steps.
"Inherency and obviousness are distinct concepts." W.L.
Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220
USPQ 303, 314 (Fed. Cir. 1983) citing In re Spormann, 363 F.2d
444, 448, 150 USPQ 449, 452 (CCPA 1966). Furthermore, "[t]o
establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence 'must make clear
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007