Ex parte WARREN - Page 3



               Appeal No. 2000-0469                                                                           Page 3                 
               Application No. 08/936,321                                                                                            
                       Appellant argues that, “the Cranston et al. patent does not disclose or suggest that the                      

               electrically conductive particles comprise epoxy.”  See page 2 lines 18-19 of the Reply Brief.  The                   

               Appellant further argues that neither the Shreeve nor the Cranston references “disclose or suggest ‘a                 

               grid array interconnect structure comprising double sided nonconductive transfer tape having adhesive                 

               disposed on both sides thereof, and having conductive epoxy interconnects formed therethrough’”.  See                 

               page 2 lines 23-27 of the Reply Brief.                                                                                

                       In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing              

               a prima facie case of obviousness.  In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444                          

               (Fed. Cir. 1992).  The Examiner can satisfy this burden only by showing some objective teaching in the                

               prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would lead that                   

               individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references.  In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5                   

               USPQ2d 1596, 1598.  Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming forward with                         

               evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.  Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444.  See                     

               also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (“After a prima facie case of                             

               obviousness has been established, the burden of going forward shifts to the applicant.’)  If the Examiner             

               fails to establish a prima facie case, the rejection is improper and accordingly merits reversal.  Fine,              

               837 F.2d at 1074, 5 USPQ2d at 1598.                                                                                   

                       On actual page 3 lines 8-18 of the answer, the Examiner sets forth the rejection of Appellant’s               

               claim 1 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Shreeve and Cranston.  The Examiner then                     

               states how Shreeve teaches all of the limitations as claimed in claim 1 except for “conductive epoxy as               

               conductive element and also the ... adhesive disposed on both sides.”  See actual page 4 lines 11-13 of               






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007