Appeal 2006-2343
Application 10/246,620
The Rejection of Claim 2 as Obvious over Keller
With respect to the rejection of claim 2, Appellants do not present any
arguments over and above what was argued in relation to claim 1. We,
affirm with regard to this rejection for the reasons presented above.
The Rejection of Claim 7 over Keller in view of Huss
With respect to the rejection of claim 7, Appellants do not present any
arguments over and above those addressed above, but instead simply argue
that nothing in Huss remedies the deficiencies of Keller. We conclude that
the Examiner established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
the subject matter of claim 7 for the reasons stated by the Examiner and the
reasons stated above with regard to the rejection of claim 1.
The Rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-25 over von Kraewel and Sakamoto
In the rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 13-25 over von Kraewel and
Sakamoto, the Examiner relies upon von Kraewel as describing a roll of
masking tape with a punched hole. According to the Examiner, “Figure 2b
shows that the portion of the masking tape with the punched hole is not
completely separated from the roll until the masking tape is applied to the
printed wire board.” (Answer 5). The Examiner, therefore, concludes that
“von Kraewel discloses a roll of punched masking tape for semiconductor
comprising at least one through-hole within the tape.” (Answer 5).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness over von Kraewel and Sakamoto. All the
claims are directed to a roll of punched adhesive tape. This requires the
product to be in roll form. We cannot agree with the Examiner that the tape
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007