Appeal No. 2003-0273 Page 6
Application No. 09/863,664
larger than the microchip, opening 50 in the shell portion is smaller than the microchip
and thus the microchip cannot extend “through” it and, it follows, does not extend
“through” the predetermined thickness of the load beam.
In making the rejection of claim 24, the examiner admits that in the Goss
construction the microchip does not extend “through” the predetermined thickness of the
load beam, but takes the position that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to enlarge opening 50 to allow this to occur because “[t]hese configurations
operate in the same manner and produce the same results. There is no showing of
criticality” (Answer, page 4). We agree with the appellant that the examiner’s reasoning
is defective and this rejection should not stand.
Since Goss attaches the microchip to the shell portion around the perimeter of the
opening, making the opening larger would necessitate a modification of the Goss
structure. The examiner has provided no reason why one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to do so. In this regard, we point out that it is a feature of
the Goss to “encase” the microchip within the cavity to protect it and its terminals
(column 3, line 65 et seq.), and the modification proposed by the examiner would
subvert this objective and thus, in our view, would operate as a disincentive for the
artisan to make the proposed modification.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007