Appeal No. 1998-3130 Page 7
Application No. 08/626,174
will support additional capacitors without eliminating vias 28
and corresponding land pads 32." (Id. at 7.)
Because Banerjee merely teaches a four-sided heat slug,
Fig. 2, no. 54, we are not persuaded that teachings from the
applied prior art would have suggested the claimed limitations
of a heat slug having at least five sides. The examiner fails
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we
reverse the rejections of claims 6-18 as obvious over
Banerjee.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 6-18 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007