Appeal No. 2003-0016 Page 6
Application No. 09/400,613
The obviousness rejections
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 16 to 18, 20, 21 and 27 to 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden
of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness is
established by presenting evidence that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596,
1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562
(CCPA 1972).
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree.
Claims 16 to 18 recite the step of depositing an annular member formed of
conductive particles in a resinous matrix. Claims 20 and 21 recite the step of forming
an upstanding conductive, annular member on a first contact surface. Claims 27 to 29
recite the step of forming at least one annular opening in a stencil creating an inner
member inward of said opening and an outer member outward of said opening.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007