Appeal No. 2000-1787
Application No. 08/646,735
The obviousness rejections
We sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hargis in view of Beers.
In our opinion, a combined assessment of the Hargis and
Beers (known practice of repairing) teachings would have
suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art a repairing
step, incident to or as a function of testing, and prior to
removal of an electronic packaging substrate, in the method of
Hargis. In our opinion, one having ordinary skill in this art
would have reasonably been expected to repair a detected problem
prior to removal to assure that the repaired component
subsequently tests out as functional. Our assessment in this
matter presumes skill on the part of those practicing this art,
rather than the converse. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743,
226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, we support the
examiner's rationale in rejecting claim 4 as being obvious.
Contrary to the view of appellants (main brief, pages 10
through 14), and as explained earlier in this opinion, Hargis
teaches what would be recognized as a printed circuit board and,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007