Appeal No. 1998-2800 Page 9
Application No. 08/572,505
at page 25 of appellants' specification. Also, note at least
the Fujikawa reference of record.
The patentability of appellants' claims do not appear to
have been fully considered by the examiner with respect to the
admitted prior art being utilized as the "primary reference"
in light of the above-noted case law which alone may suggest
the prima facie obviousness of making the admitted prior art
batch process continuous. Of course, the examiner should also
consider the admitted prior art together with other references
that are of record or otherwise known to the examiner that may
likewise suggest such a modification of the admitted prior art
method. In addition, the references directed to the formation
of a matting layer should be considered together therewith to
determine whether the provision of a matting layer forming
step as part of the admitted prior art process of making a
lead-frame would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art.
Moreover, the secondary evidence of record should be
reconsidered by the examiner to determine whether or not that
evidence is sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness
that may be relied upon by the examiner in contemplating such
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007