Appeal No. 1998-2907
Application No. 08/471,748
Similarly, for claim 21 and its dependent, claim 28, the
examiner fails to provide motivation for combining the
references in such a way as to arrive at the claimed
invention. In particular, the admitted prior art includes a
paddle bonded to the bottom of the semiconductor die and a
movable mass suspended in the top face of the die, as recited
in the claims. Roylance, on the other hand, has the paddle
supporting the mass with the cover bonded to the end of the
paddle. Greiff discloses no paddle at all. Therefore, it is
unclear to us how one would combine the three references to
arrive at a cap bonded over the top of the die and a metal
paddle bonded to the bottom of the die. As the examiner never
specifically addresses these limitations, there is no prima
facie of obviousness, and we cannot sustain the rejection of
claims 21 and 28.
Last, as to claim 25 and its dependents, claims 26 and
37, merely that Greiff includes metal layers in the bridge
electrode does not render it obvious to the skilled artisan
to form a cap of metal over the accelerometer. There is no
indication in Greiff that the bridge electrode completely
covers the accelerometer so as to protect it. Further, as
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007