Appeal No. 2003-1501
Application 09/756,929
Rigali modified by the teachings of Ito would have been capable of curing plastic encapsulated
electronic packages because Ito does disclose an embodiment in which the substrate is heated to
a temperature of 1000°C. We find no evidence of record, including the passage from the
specification we set forth above, that plastic encapsulated electronics packages would not be
cured when heated to processing temperatures in the temperature ranges of plasma gas treatment
methods disclosed in Ito. See generally, Glass, supra; Ludtke, supra. Moreover, we find
adequate support for the examiner’s statement of the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in this art in col. 1 of Ito.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record before us, we have
weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the combined teachings of Rigali and Ito with
appellant’s countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the
claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 45, 53 through 57 and 60 through 62
would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The examiner’s decision is affirmed.
Other Issues
While we have affirmed the decision of the examiner based on the disclosure in Rigali,
we suggest that the examiner consider the following in the event of further prosecution of the
appealed claims.
We referred above to the disclosure in Rigali of the “PX series Plasma Cleaning Systems”
at, e.g., col. 6, lines 14-20 (see pp. 7-8). In this respect, Rigali states that “certain documents
regularly supplied to purchasers of the PX series Plasma Cleaning Systems” are in the patent file
as Appendices A through E of the specification (col. 6, lines 22-25). Upon review of these
documents in the Rigali file, it appears to us that the disclosure therein reasonably pertains to the
appealed claims.
- 17 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007