Appeal No. 2002-1416
Application No. 09/146,519
fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of
circumstances is not sufficient." High pressures clearly can
occur without an explosion, and, therefore, explosive forces are
not inherent in Dobson's method.
The examiner also contends (Answer, page 3) that Cranston
renders obvious the use of an explosive force in Dobson's method.
However, Cranston discloses using an explosive force for bonding
two work pieces together, not for filling a hole in the
semiconductor wafer. We find no suggestion in Cranston to use
such explosive forces for moving material to fill holes or voids.
Accordingly, as the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness, we cannot sustain the rejection of
independent claims 2, 11, 14, 15, and 18 and their dependents,
claims 3 through 9, 19, and 20.
As to claims 12 through 15, the examiner adds Jeffryes to
the primary combination of Dobson and Cranston. Jeffryes, like
Dobson, discloses maintaining a high temperature and pressure for
a sufficient time. Jeffryes does not suggest using an explosive
force. Consequently, Jeffryes fails to cure the deficiencies in
the combination of Dobson and Cranston, so we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 12 through 15.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007