Appeal No. 1999-0843
Application No. 08/666,970
combination of Kaneko and Kojima, and the rejection of claims
12-16 based on the combination of Kaneko and NEC. Appellant’s
response to this rejection (Brief, pages 13-15) reiterates the
argument that the electrode connections in Kojima and NEC are
on only one side of a multifinger arrangement. It is apparent
from the Examiner’s analysis (Answer, page 6), however, that
the Kojima and NEC references were applied solely to address
the air bridge and via hole features of claims 5, 9, and 12-
16. These references were applied in combination with Kaneko
to establish the basis for the obviousness rejection. One
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231
USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness has not been rebutted by any
convincing arguments from Appellant, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 5, 9, and 12-16 is sustained.
In summary, we have sustained all of the Examiner’s
rejections of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007