Appeal No. 2004-2144
Application No. 09/483,712
298, 302 (CCPA 1974); In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508, 173 USPQ
356, 358 (CCPA 1972). Appellants have not, on this record,
substantiated their argument that the negative impact of adding
bond wires is “widely documented and well known” in the art. In
contrast, the examiner has shown evidence of the similarity in
structures and purpose of Farnworth and Lee, as well as
motivation to modify the structure of Farnworth, i.e., the
advantages taught by Lee for the lead on chip (LOC) package
(Answer, paragraph bridging pages 4-5 and pages 6-7). See In re
Mayne, 104 F.3d 1339, 1342, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir.
1997)(“When relying on numerous references or a modification of
prior art, it is incumbent upon the examiner to identify some
suggestion to combine references or make the modification.
[Citations omitted].”). We determine that the examiner has met
the initial burden of establishing a case of prima facie
obviousness for reasons discussed above. We note that appellants
have not challenged or contested the examiner’s showing of
motivation or suggestion of modification (i.e., the advantages
taught by Lee). Appellants have only presented unsupported
arguments concerning the negative impact of the proposed
modification.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007