Appeal No. 2005-2558
Application No. 10/408,149
and repairing suggests adjusting the positioning or replacing a
component.
In view of the above, we affirm the rejection of claims 31
and 41.
Claims 28, 37, 32 and 42
Beginning on page 11 of the reply brief, appellants state
that Schar in view of Bearinger and Mase do not suggest the
feature of claims 28 and 37 “wherein heating each of the
conductive adhesive elements is performed at 50 to 105ºC for 10
minutes to 1 hour.” Appellants also argue that the applied art
does not suggest the features of claims 32 and 42 “wherein
performing the full cure comprises heat curing the conductive
adhesive elements at 50 to 200ºC for 15 seconds to 12 hours.”
It is the examiner’s position, as set forth on page 14 of
the answer, that parameters such as time and temperature for
curing would have been within the mechanical skill of the one
skilled in the art. We agree. As stated by the examiner, such
parameters would depend on the type of adhesive utilized, for
example. We note that where general conditions of the appealed
claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to
discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation,
and appellants have the burden of proving any criticality. In re
Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 218-19 (CCPA 1980); In
re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007