Appeal No. 1999-2226 Page 8
Application No. 08/582,678
We conclude that a reasonable interpretation of this language encompasses placing the templates
80, 81 onto the tray 10 of Murphy. The step of engaging patentee’s key 92 with keyway 83, the
slot 91 with the beam 31, and so on, satisfies the step of “securing said plurality of modules in
said master frame to form said pack tray.”
In our analysis of the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1 and 21, we have not relied
upon AAPA. In fact, this analysis leads us to conclude that claims 1 and 21 lack novelty with
respect to Murphy. Nevertheless, it has been firmly established that a lack of novelty is the
ultimate of obviousness, and evidence establishing a lack of novelty in a claimed invention
necessarily evidences obviousness. See In re Fracalossi, 681 F. 2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571
(CCPA 1982).
Thus, for the reasons detailed above, it is appropriate to sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 1 and 21 as being unpatentable over Murphy in view of AAPA.
However, we agree with the Appellant that there is no motivation to secure the templates
of Murphy to the tray 10 by flowing plastic around said plurality of modules (i.e., templates) in
said master frame (i.e., tray 10), as recited in claim 7. Although AAPA teaches that one flows
plastic around the metal master mold, there is no disclosure of why this step is performed.
Apparently, it is not for the purpose of securing parts of the packing tray together since the
packing tray of the admitted prior art is a single metal piece machined to provide apertures,
ridges, and recessed areas. In any event, Murphy does not teach that the templates remain
attached to the tray after facilitating the packing of the chips into the tray 10. Thus, no reason
exists for combining the teachings of Murphy and AAPA. Under these circumstances, we cannot
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007