Appeal No. 2001-0014 Page 8
Application No. 09/070,899
the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985).
We note that Appellant’s claim 6 recites
... which chip is bonded with solder face down upon a
ceramic substrate so as to constitute an hermetic
enclosure with opposed walls constituted respectively by
the chip and the ceramic substrate,
and wherein electrical contact with each opto-electronic
device of the array is made by way of electrically
conductive connections at least one of which includes an
electrically conductive via extending through the
thickness of the ceramic substrate.
We find that the claim under appeal requires that the
device side of the chip be bonded with conductive solder to
the ceramic substrate. The claim further requires that
contact to each device in the array be made by at least a
conductive via extending through the thickness of the
substrate and the conductive solder contacting each device.
We note that the same solder forms the hermetic seal for an
enclosure constituted by the chip and the substrate.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007