Appeal No. 2000-2181
Application No. 08/966,229
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lin in view of Sundaram and Zieren.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 15 and 19)
and the answer (paper number 17) for the respective positions of
the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that the appellants have not chosen
to argue the merits of the examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3,
4, 11, 14, 17 and 18 (brief, pages 5 and 12). Accordingly, the
obviousness rejection of these claims is sustained pro forma.
The obviousness rejection of claims 12, 13 and 16 is
reversed because the applied references neither teach nor would
have suggested the specifically claimed thicknesses of the
semiconductor substrate.
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 15 and 20,
we agree with the appellants (brief, pages 7 and 8) that the top
layer 48 and the bottom layer 35 in Sundaram are not securing
layers as stated by the examiner (answer, page 4). Thus, in
spite of Lazzari’s disclosure of an integrated circuit 12 on an
opposite side of the substrate 10 from magnetic head 11, the
combined teachings of the references as proposed by the examiner
(answer, pages 4, 7 and 8) would still lack the securing layer of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007