Appeal No. 2000-0806
Application No. 09/016,398
printed circuit board 32. Assuming that board 32 is
appropriately sized to meet the claim language, however,
Figure 6 clearly illustrates that semiconductor chip 12 does
not have substantially the same size as reinforcement base 34.
In Figure 6 of Dordi, semiconductor chip 12 is pictured as a
rectangle at the center of a much larger rectangle depicting
stiffener 34. Selna contains no teaching to remedy the
deficiencies of Dordi; in all embodiments shown in Selna,
semiconductor chip 12 is much smaller than the board to which
it is mounted. Because the combination advanced by the
Examiner does not contain every element of the claimed
invention, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 14-20
under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by
the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007