Appeal No. 2002-0388 Page 4
Application No. 08/937,859
“flexible membrane” 3 extending over “opening” 51 of a semiconductor “frame” 6 (Answer at
pp. 5-6). Rud calls these structures an insulating layer 3, cavity 51, and substrate 6, respectively.
Substrate 6 of Rud is not, in the ordinary sense, a “frame having an opening.” Cavity 51 does not
extend all the way through substrate 6 of Rud such that there is a “frame” with an “opening” as
required by the claim. The “membrane” 3 of Rudd, therefore, does not extend over a “frame”
and “the opening of the ... frame” as further required by claim 1.
The rejection, therefore, falls short because no finding fact establishes that the
combination of prior art suggests the structure of claim 1, the independent claim. We conclude
that the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
subject matter of claims 1-12.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007