Appeal 2007-0053
Application 10/225,829
entire structure, as taught by Yanagisawa, in order to prevent stress concentrations
within the article receiving regions (Final Office Action 3 and Answer 4-7). The
issues before us are whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
combine the teachings of Bird and Yanagisawa in the manner claimed and whether
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined
teachings of Bird and Yanagisawa teach or suggest a bottom or second cover layer
of a carrier tape having at least one weakened feature.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find that the following enumerated findings are supported by at least a
preponderance of the evidence. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427, 7
USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard
for proceedings before the Office).
1. The Examiner found that Bird discloses a temporary component-
carrier tape 10 comprising a device-retaining layer 12 including a plurality of
apertures 22, at least one electronic device 84, and a top cover layer 28 (Final
Office Action 2 (citing Bird, col. 4, ll. 14-17)). Appellant does not challenge this
finding (Br. 6).
2. Bird further discloses that the carrier tape 10 has a bottom cover layer
26 (Bird, col. 4, ll. 61-63).
3. Bird discloses that its carrier tape is wound about the hub of a reel to
form a supply roll 68 and the carrier tape can be used for transporting and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013