Appeal No. 1999-0591
Application 08/581,905
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ
685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472,
223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
Since the broadest claims on appeal are rejected on the
combination of Kinsman and the admitted prior art, we consider
first the rejection of those claims which are based only on
Kinsman and the admitted prior art. The examiner finds that
Kinsman teaches a method for retaining a semiconductor die in a
cavity to perform operations on the die using a piece of adhesive
tape which has been sized and transferred to the fixture. The
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007