Appeal No. 2005-2489
Application No. 09/949,736
by a reasonable expectation of improving the operation of the
laser ablation system taught by Gartner.
In reaching this determination, we note the appellant’s
argument that the detector described by the Somers is not taught
to be used on a plastic resin encapsulated integrated circuit.
However, the examiner correctly points out that the manner in
which the claimed detector is intended to be employed does not
structurally distinguish it from the detector described by
Somers.
The appellant also argues that ”the present invention is
directed to solve a different problem than what the Gartner et al
reference is addressing...” See the Brief, page 10. It appears
to be the appellant’s position that Gartner is from a
nonanalogous art. Id. However, we concur with the examiner that
Gartner is analogous or relevant to the claimed subject matter
since it is directed to the same field of the appellant’s
endeavor, i.e., a laser ablation system.
Thus, having considered all of the evidence of record, we
determine that the preponderance of evidence weighs most heavily
in favor of obviousness. Hence, we concur with the examiner that
the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the applied prior art
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007