Appeal No. 2001-1509
Application No. 08/871,890
find no basis for the Examiner’s assertion that the skilled
artisan would have been motivated and found it obvious to add
additional rows of solder pads, let alone in the particular
configuration set forth by Appellants in claim 5. It also
follows therefore that, even assuming, arguendo, that the skilled
artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of
Bhatt with JP ‘767 so as to use the board of JP ‘767 as a chip
carrier as proposed by the Examiner, the resultant structure
would not meet the requirements of appealed claim 5.
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 5, as well as claims
6-24 dependent thereon, is not sustained.
We have also considered the Kumagai, Kato, and WO ‘796
references applied by the Examiner to address the various
features of several dependent claims. We find nothing in these
references, however, which would overcome, either individually or
collectively, the innate deficiencies of Bhatt and JP ‘767
discussed supra.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007