Appeal No. 2005-1057 Page 4
Application No. 09/802,792
Koizumi does not describe this feature of claim 1. In appellants' view, the structure prior
to the severing of the chip from the wafer is a wafer not a chip.
We do not find this argument persuasive because it is not commensurate with
the actual scope of claim 1. Claim 1 recites a chip but does not recited a severed chip.
Therefore, each of the chips of Koizumi prior to severance from the wafer is a chip that
meets the requirements of claim 1. As these chips are depicted in Figure 11B to 11E to
have a light transmissive planar layer in the groove 92, the requirements of claim 1 are
met.
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1. We will also
sustain the rejection of claims 6 to 10, 20, 22 to 24 and 26 to 30 as these claims stand
or fall with claim 1 because the appellants have not separately argued the patentability
of these claims. Accordingly, we have determined that these claims must be treated as
falling with their respective independent claim. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and 37 CFR §§ 1.192(c)(7) and 1.192(c)(8)(iv).
The appellants have not specifically argued the rejection of claims 2 , 12 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi or the rejection of claims 3,
13 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Koizumi in view of
Jedlicka. In regard to these rejections the appellants rely on the arguments made in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007