Appeal No. 1998-3074
Application 08/804,850
prior art. More specifically, however, we agree with appellants' views generally expressed
as to this rejection at pages 4 through 6 of the principal brief on appeal. Essentially, we
read the Simmons and Mizushima references in the same manner as set forth by
appellants at these portions of the principal brief. Simmons does form a fuse link but in a
conductive layer below the top layer where claim 1 clause D requires that “at least one fuse
portion of the top layer of patterned metal forming a fuse link”
as a significant recitation. According to the Simmons' teaching, the fuse link 17 is buried
below the top bond pad layer 23. This fuse link 17 in Simmons is formed in what amounts
to the first or lowest patterned metal layer of nickel, layer 9. Moreover, Mizushima fails to
teach the formation of any fuses at any layer level discussed and depicted in the figures
associated with this patent. In view of these considerations, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter of independent claim
1 on appeal based upon the applied prior art. As such, we must also reverse the rejection
of respective dependent claims 2 through 7.
1
Turning lastly to independent claim 19 , under the provisions of 37 CFR
1The reversal of the outstanding art rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 19
through 26 should not necessarily be construed as a reversal of the rejection of these
claims on the merits. As a starting point for rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note in
passing that the admitted prior art associated with figures 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b would appear
(continued...)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007