Appeal No. 2005-2626
Application No. 09/954,149
‘evidence.’” In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir.
1999). “Mere denials and conclusory statements, however, are not sufficient to establish
a genuine issue of material fact.” Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999-1000,
50 USPQ2d at 1617, citing McElmurry v. Arkansas Power & Light Co., 995 F.2d
1576, 1578, 27 USPQ2d 1129, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, as pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope
of the claim. “[T]he name of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d
1362,1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the
limitations of independent claim 1. Appellant argues that neither the AAPA nor
Mangiagli teach or suggest the “junction portion” and “junction face” as recited in the
language of independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 recites that the “junction portion
having a junction face joined at its other end to a second circuit pattern different from
the first circuit pattern on which the power semiconductor element is mounted and
directly connected with the power semiconductor element through a wire member
bonded to the face opposite to the junction face of the terminal junction portion.” From
our review of the teachings of the AAPA and Mangiagli, we find no teaching or fair
suggestion of a junction face directly connected to a circuit pattern and the opposite
face connected with the power semiconductor element through a wire member as
required by the instant claimed invention. Nor do we find any convincing line of
reasoning why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007