Appeal No. 2001-1451
Application No. 09/166,656
Claims 1 through 17 and 19 through 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gaul in view of AAPA.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Filippazzi or Gaul in view of AAPA and Kazama.
We note that the rejection of claims 1 through 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, has not been repeated in the
Answer and is thus considered to be withdrawn.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 23,
mailed January 3, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Amended Brief
(Paper No. 24, filed February 12, 2001) and Reply Brief (Paper
No. 25, filed February 12, 2001) for appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 23.
The examiner asserts (Answer, page 4) that Filippazzi
discloses "an electrically conductive probe 3 extending from the
back surface of the substrate to the active region and
terminating at the active region (column 3, lines 47-49)."
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007