Appeal No. 2004-2144
Application No. 09/483,712
Appellants argue that the combination of Farnworth and Lee
does not teach or suggest the claim limitations of claims 3, 6,
11, 12 and 14 (Brief, page 9). This argument is not persuasive
since the applied references disclose the adhesive-coated
polyimide tape recited in claim 3 on appeal (e.g., see Lee, col.
4, ll. 60-63), the lead fingers of the conductive traces as
recited in claim 6 on appeal (e.g., see Farnworth, col. 4, ll.
33-38), and the thermocompression bonds of claims 11 and 12 on
appeal (e.g., see Lee, col. 4, ll. 65-67). Furthermore, Lee
teaches external connection means exposed for electrical
connection to the external interconnections (col. 5, ll. 21-24),
and thus would have suggested any conductive element such as a
conductive polymer as recited in claim 14 on appeal that would
suffice for the external connection.
For the foregoing reasons and those stated in the Answer, we
determine that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness in view of the reference evidence. Based on the
totality of the record, including due consideration of
appellants’ arguments, we determine that the preponderance of
evidence weighs most heavily in favor of obviousness within the
meaning of section 103(a). See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Accordingly, we
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007