Appeal No. 1999-0591
Application 08/581,905
testing and burn-in of a semiconductor die [brief, pages 9-15].
The examiner responds that Kinsman is not relied on for
the teaching of a piece of adhesively coated tape [answer, page
9], but the examiner also responds that Kinsman teaches the
process of providing tape having adhesive on at least one side
thereof [id., page 10]. The examiner does not directly respond
to appellants’ argument that the examiner has improperly taken
official notice of the claimed invention. Appellants essentially
repeat their arguments in the reply brief.
We will not sustain the rejection of the claims based on
Kinsman and the admitted prior art because the examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. We first
note that the examiner cites Kinsman as teaching the provision of
a piece of tape having adhesive on at least one side thereof, but
the examiner also asserts that he is not relying on Kinsman for
this teaching. As pointed out by appellants, Kinsman teaches a
“tape type” adhesive rather than a piece of tape as claimed. The
examiner has also admitted that there are several steps of the
claimed invention which are not disclosed by the applied prior
art, but the examiner dismisses these steps as conventional, well
known or inherent.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007