Ex Parte Takaoka et al - Page 2


               Appeal No. 2006-1756                                                                                                  
               Application 10/087,742                                                                                                

                       6.  A lead-free solder according to claim 1 containing only one member of said group.                         
                       The references relied on by the examiner are:                                                                 
               Carey, II et al. (Carey)                              6,080,497                             Jun.                    
               27, 2000                                                                                                              
               Rikiya1                                              2000-190090                           Jul.                    
               11, 2000                                                                                                              
                       (Japanese Patent Publication)                                                                                 
                       The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being                       
               unpatentable over Rikiya or Carey (answer, pages 3-6).                                                                
                       Appellants argue the claims generally and group claims 2 and 3 and claims 5 and 6 (brief,                     
               e.g., pages 4, 6 and 8).  Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 1, 2 and 6 as                          
               representative of the ground of rejection and appellants’ groupings of claims.  37 CFR                                
               § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).                                                                                            
                       We affirm.                                                                                                    
                       Rather than reiterate the respective positions advanced by the examiner and appellants,                       
               we refer to the answer2 and to the brief and reply brief for a complete exposition thereof.                           
                                                              Opinion                                                                
                       We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based thereon find ourselves in                      
               agreement with the supported position advanced by the examiner that, prima facie, the claimed                         
               lead-free solder encompassed by appealed claims 1, 2 and 6 would have been obvious over the                           
               teachings of either Rikiya or Carey to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time the claimed                      
               invention was made.  Accordingly, since a prima facie case of obviousness has been established                        
               by the examiner, we again evaluate all of the evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based                        
               on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to the weight of appellants’ arguments in the                      
               brief and reply brief.  See generally, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444                       
               (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).                            
                                                                                                                                    
               1  We refer in our opinion to the translation of Rikiya by the Japan Patent Office. The translation                   
               includes the caveat “has been translated by computer . . . [and] may not reflect the original                         
               precisely.” Neither party argues the applicability of the translation in this respect.                                



                                                                - 2 -                                                                



Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007