Appeal No. 2001-1690
Application 08/859,407
We note that Mignardi teaches that a protective cover
44 is used during the undercutting operation. However, we do not
view the use of a protective cover as reading on “attaching a lid
to the package.” As explained in the specification, page 12,
lines 16-17, attaching the lid to the package “hermetically
seal[s] the micromechanical device therewithin.” Mignardi’s
cover is placed over the exposed adhesive 21 or dicing tape 22,
as opposed to over the devices, and there is no indication in
Mignardi that the cover is actually “attached” to the tape. See
Mignardi, column 4, lines 24-27;
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1, 2, 3 and 6 is
reversed.
Claims 4 and 5 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Mignardi in view of various secondary
references. The examiner does not rely on the secondary
references for a teaching or suggestion of the step of “attaching
a lid.” Thus, having found that the examiner has failed to
establish that the subject matter of claim 1 is unpatentable over
Mignardi, we also find a similar failure to establish
unpatentability with respect to claims 4 and 5 which depend from
claim 1. The rejections of claims 4 and 5 are reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007