Appeal No. 1998-0908
Application No. 08/506,292
interconnect teachings of Moriya to the structure of either of
the King references, regardless of whether Moriya is concerned
with integrated circuit packages or wafer scale technology as
with Appellants’ claimed invention. “The test for obviousness is
not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. . . .
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ
385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 967,
179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973).
For the above reasons, it is our opinion that, since the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been rebutted
by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 57 is sustained.
As to claims 68, 71, 72, 75, 78-80, 83, we also sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of these claims based on
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007