Appeal No. 2004-0710
Application No. 09/726,260
element. The examiner’s citation of the admitted prior art is
only to establish that electronic packages comprising only a
single circuit element were known in the art. Contrary to
appellants’ arguments, it is not necessary for a finding of
obviousness that the features of Ball’s electronic package be
incorporated into the package of the admitted prior art.
Moreover, we find that Ball describes the claimed electronic
package within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 102. By virtue of the
“comprising” language, the appealed claims do not preclude a
second integrated circuit element of the type disclosed by Ball.
It is well settled that the term “comprising” opens the claim to
components other than those specifically recited in the claim.
In our view, a reasonable interpretation of claim 11 is an
electronic circuit package including an additional, or second,
single integrated circuit element. It is by now axiomatic that
anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no arguments
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness such as unexpected
results.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007