Appeal No. 2001-2315
Application 09/145,106
claimed subject matter. In re Fine, 87 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Only if this initial burden is met
does the burden of coming forward with evidence or argument shift
to the Appellants. In re Oeticker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ at
1444. See also Piasecki, 745 F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “In
reviewing the [E]xaminer’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all the evidence and arguments.” In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444. “[T]he Board must
not only assure that the requisite findings are made, based on
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In
re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir.
2002). With these principles in mind, we commence review of the
pertinent evidence and arguments of Appellants and Examiner.
On a careful review, we find that the Examiner has failed to
provide the requisite findings in Biederman and Verzaro for
suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a
passivation layer comprising plasma polymerized methylsiloxane
extending over a portion of the die and the die carrier in a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007