Appeal No. 2005-0088
Application No. 10/160,629
Appellants also contend that it would not have been obvious
for one of ordinary skill in the art to eliminate the main
substrate of Orihara and only use the adhesive film. However,
the “comprising” language of the appealed claims does not exclude
substrate 1 of Orihara.
Moreover, we fail to perceive any distinction in structure
between the IC card of Orihara and the article embraced by claim
1 on appeal. In particular, film 5 of Orihara corresponds to the
claimed substrate film, chip 6 corresponds to the claimed
semiconductor chip, connecting bumps 6a and 6b correspond to the
claimed connection points, and terminals 2a and 2b of the
reference correspond to the claimed contact areas that are
applied directly to the surface of film 5. Also, by definition,
an anisotropic layer is conductive in only one direction.
Accordingly, it would appear that Orihara describes the subject
matter defined by at least claim 1 on appeal within the meaning
of § 102.
As a final point, we note that appellants base no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the prima facie case of
obviousness established by the examiner.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007