Appeal No. 2005-2530
Application No. 10/612,129
proper combination with Lee. In fact, obtaining a void free
adhesive bonding would have led one of ordinary skill in the art
to look into the teachings of Lupinski in order to benefit from
the disclosed polymeric adhesive composition for laminating an
insulating substrate to an integrated circuit chip in low
temperature. As in the case before us, a motivation to combine
prior art references may be found in the nature of the problem to
be solved. Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69
USPQ2d 1686,1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Also, evidence of a
suggestion, teaching, or motivation to modify a reference may
flow from the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of
one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the
nature of the problem to be solved. See In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d
994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Pro-Mold & Tool
Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d
1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
In view of the analysis above, we find the Examiner’s
reliance on the combination of Lee and Lupinski to be reasonable
and sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 and
7-15 is sustained.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007