Appeal No. 96-1705
Application No. 08/296,269
lead frame conductors vary from the proximal ends to the
distal ends.” Appellants dispute that Figure 2b of Lim
discloses the thickness limitation of the proximal ends as
recited in claims 8 and 9 [brief, pages 13-19]. With respect
to this particular limitation of claims 8 and 9, we are in
agreement with appellants.
Claims 8 and 9 each recites that the proximal ends of
the conductors have a thickness less than “said selected
thickness.” The antecedent basis for “said selected
thickness” is the thickness of the metal sheet stock from
which the lead frame is formed. The thickness identified by
the examiner runs in a direction perpendicular to the
thickness of the metal stock sheet. Thus, all the examiner
has identified is that the proximal ends of the conductors in
Lim have a width which is less than the width of the distal
ends of the conductors. No comparison of thicknesses with the
thickness of the metal sheet stock is indicated in Lim. In
fact, Lim’s Figure 2c suggests that there is no change in
thickness as claimed between the proximal ends of the
conductors and the metal sheet stock. Therefore, Lim does not
fully meet the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. § 102.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007