Ex parte BYRNE et al. - Page 2




                 Appeal No. 1998-2159                                                                                     Page 2                        
                 Application No. 08/539,892                                                                                                             


                          The appellants' invention relates to a process of bonding                                                                     
                 a nozzle plate to a surface of a semiconductor chip.  A copy                                                                           
                 of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the                                                                         
                 appellants' brief.                                                                                                                     


                          The prior art references of record relied upon by the                                                                         
                 examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                                                                                         
                 Schantz et al.                                                 5,408,738                                    Apr.                       
                 25, 1995                                                                                                                               
                 (Schantz)                                                                                                                              
                 Takatsu      1                                        JP 57-70612                         May   1, 1982                                



                          Claims 1 to 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as                                                                         
                 being unpatentable over Schantz in view of Takatsu.                                                                                    


                          Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced                                                                     
                 by the examiner and the appellants regarding the above-noted                                                                           
                 rejection, we make reference to the final rejection (Paper No.                                                                         
                 6, mailed September 5, 1997) and the answer (Paper No. 10,                                                                             


                          1In determining the teachings of Takatsu, we will rely on                                                                     
                 the translation of record provided by the USPTO.                                                                                       







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007