Appeal No. 2003-0799 Page 5
Application No. 09/567,818
use. Thus, there is a suggestion for the combination within the prior art. We, therefore, are
unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument.
Claim 4
Appellants argue that the aluminum patches of claim 4 are not taught or suggested by the
cited prior art. Barth describes conductive metal patterns 10, 12 interconnecting device contacts
12, 16 with external contacts 18, 20 which are covered by polyimide upper and lower layers 22,
23 (Barth, col. 3, ll. 37-42). These conductive metal patterns extend across the gap between the
silicon islands 24, 26 as shown in Figs. 1A and 1B. While Barth does not identify the metal
used, the APA indicates that metal leads were conventionally formed of aluminum (Figs 1A-1C,
specification, p. 7, ll. 12-14). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected aluminum for the metal
patterns of Barth as such a selection was conventional in the art.
Claim 5
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the at least one MEMS
device of claim 5 in combination with the specific islands used (Brief, p. 7). As pointed out by
the Examiner, Barth describes a MEMS device such as a thermometer array probe (Barth, col. 2,
ll. 5-8). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the subject matter of claim 5
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
As a final point, we note that Appellants base no arguments upon objective evidence of
non-obviousness such as unexpected results. We conclude that the Examiner has established a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007