Appeal No. 2001-1509
Application No. 08/871,890
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of appealed claim 5, the sole independent claim on appeal, based
on the combination of JP ‘767 and Bhatt, Appellants assert that
the Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness since all of the claimed limitations are not taught
or suggested by the applied prior art references. In particular,
Appellants contend (Brief, pages 11 and 12; Reply Brief, pages 4-
6) that the Bhatt reference, relied upon by the Examiner for
teaching the claimed solder pad arrangement, does not meet the
requirements of claim 5. Appellants assert that, in contrast to
the language of claim 5 which requires that the outer layer pad
group include solder pads “ . . . in at least two and up to five
rows from an outer position of the solder pad group . . . , ”
Bhatt discloses only one row of solder pads that have flat pads
connected to the outermost conductor pattern 21.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007