Appeal No. 2003-0527 Page 8
Application No. 09/036,291
terms of power rather than a voltage having a magnitude that represents the ongoing
total amount of charge that has been furnished for bonding,
The absence of integrating an input voltage signal having a magnitude that
represents the magnitude of a bonding current, generating an output voltage signal
having a magnitude that represents the ongoing total amount of charge that has been
furnished for bonding, and halting the flow of the bonding current when the ongoing
total amount of charge exceeds a predetermined threshold negates anticipation.
Therefore, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 8 and of claim 10, which
depends therefrom.
"In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the
claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781,
783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048,
1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007