Appeal No. 2001-2082
Application No. 08/943,146
based on the Examiner’s failure to establish a prima facie case
of anticipation with respect to claim 21, we do not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 21-24 over Mikkor.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1-3 and 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed.
We make the following new ground of rejection for claims
21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Shimbo2
pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b). We only consider independent
claim 21 and dependent claim 22, but encourage the Examiner to
consider other claims that depend from claim 21 for possible
rejections over Shimbo alone or in combination with other prior
art.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Shimbo. Shimbo is related to a method of
bonding two silicon bodies without an adhesive agent for
improving the stress induced inaccuracies in measuring pressure.
However, Shimbo discloses a conventional semiconductor pressure
transducer that uses a gold-silicon eutectic alloy for bonding
the two substrates (Figure 1 and col. 1, line 57 through col. 2,
2 Shimbo et al. (Shimbo) 4,671,846 June. 9, 1987
(a copy of which is attached to this decision)
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007