Appeal 2007-1747
Application 10/061,492
test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
We are not convinced otherwise by Appellants’ contentions. Allen’s
teaching that any method involving a diamond saw can be used to form slot
32 in semiconductor substrate 30 is sufficient instruction to one of ordinary
skill in this art to select any appropriate method known in the art for this
purpose. In this respect, Allen need not state a problem with slot formation
to direct this person to an appropriate method, and indeed, this person would
select a method which provides at least a reasonably formed slot with good
edges for Allen’s print head. This person would have found in Brouillette a
method of forming a slot in a semiconductor substrate with good edges and
would have recognized that the method in this reference would reasonably
work with other such substrates as there is no teaching or suggestion in this
reference that the disclosed method of cutting through a semiconductor
substrate with a diamond saw is limited to dicing wafers.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Allen and Brouillette with Appellants’ countervailing
evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude that the claimed
invention encompassed by appealed claims 43, 46, and 47 would have been
obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Primary Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013