Appeal No. 96-1705
Application No. 08/296,269
with a lead frame encapsulated with a semiconductor chip.
Therefore, there is no reason for the artisan to look to Yabe
to improve the connections in Pashby. Even if the TAB lead 7
in Yabe were considered to be the conductor of claims 2 and 3,
the “coined” or concave region of TAB lead 7 is not used for
bonding in Yabe as required by the last clause of claims 2 and
3.
We also agree with Appellants that the disparate
solutions to the connection problem employed by Pashby and
Tsukide do not lend themselves to being combined absent an
attempt to reconstruct appellants’ invention in hindsight.
The problem solved by the Tsukide device is not present in
Pashby, and, therefore, there would be no motivation to
combine the teachings of Tsukide with the teachings of Pashby.
Thus, we cannot accept the examiner’s rationale as to why the
artisan would seek to modify Pashby to include conductors with
coined and uncoined regions based on the teachings of Tsukide.
Therefore, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 2-6.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007