Appeal No. 2004-0748 Page 8
Application No. 09/427,226
conductors L1 which are fed together via the strip-shaped bonding region KB2
interconnect the two semiconductor memory chips HSC so that the outer contacts AK
are formed subsequent to the folding. Accordingly, claims 3 and 5 are not anticipated
by Hacke.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 3
and 5, and claims 4 and 15 dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Hacke is reversed.
The obviousness rejection based on Hacke
We will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hacke for the reasons set forth above with respect to
claim 3. In addition, we note that the Official Notice taken by the examiner in the final
rejection (pp. 4-5) was timely challenged by the appellants (brief, p. 7). When the
appellants seasonably challenge a factual assertion as not properly officially noticed or
not properly based upon common knowledge, the examiner must support the finding
with adequate evidence. See In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 711, 713, 60 USPQ 239, 241
(CCPA 1943) and MPEP 2144.03. This was not done in this instance.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007