Appeal No. 2003-0527 Page 9
Application No. 09/036,291
Here, the examiner does not allege, let alone show, that the addition of Tautz,
Akaike, Amrine, or Simons cures the aforementioned deficiency of Okuda. Absent a
teaching or suggestion 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, we are unpersuaded of a
prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejections of
claim 8; of claims 9-11, which depend therefrom; of claim 12; of claims 13-15, which
depend therefrom; of claim 16; and of claims 17-20, which depend therefrom.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejection of claims 8 and 10under § 102(b) is reversed. The
rejections of claims 8-20 under § 103(a) are also reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007