Appeal No. 1997-1885
Application No. 08/296,671
base with a plastic cap [brief, pages 3-4]. The examiner has
viewed the molding limitation of claim 1 as a process
limitation which does not distinguish over the prior art
product [answer, pages 6-7]. Appellants respond that the
recitation “molded over” requires a specific structural
relationship that is not suggested by the applied prior art
[reply brief].
Although the examiner was incorrect to label claim 1 a
product-by-process claim, the examiner, nevertheless, reached
the correct result when the collective teachings of the
applied references are considered. Appellants’ arguments
attack the references individually instead of considering the
teachings collectively as applied by the examiner. We view the
rejection as proposing to replace the cap or cover portion
only of the Mahulikar combination with an equivalent molded
plastic as taught by Suzuki or as shown in appellants’ prior
art Figure 1.
The molded plastic cover of Suzuki and the two piece
package having a base plate and a cap as taught by either
Mahulikar were known to the artisan as providing similar
protection for integrated circuit dies. Appellants refer to
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007