Appeal No. 1998-0152
Application No. 07/966,645
(Request for Reconsideration-page 2). This argument is not
persuasive since the examiner recognized this deficiency of
Eichelberger and relied on Kornrumpf to supply the deficiency.
Appellants also take exception to the examiner’s
identification of a ceramic package 12 having a metal top 276
in Eichelberger because Eichelberger’s disclosure identifies
element 276 as a “ceramic lid.” Appellants do not identify
any particular claim to which they direct their argument.
However, it is clear that independent claim 26 contains no
limitation of a “metal top.” With regard to dependent claim
58, where such a limitation is explicitly recited, we agreed
with appellants (see page 9 of our decision) and reversed the
rejection of claim 58.
Appellants argue that Eichelberger does not teach or
suggest the claimed “cavity.” However, as explained at page 4
of our decision, Eichelberger does refer to a prior art
structure using “grooves or wells” for placement of integrated
circuits. A “well” is a clear suggestion of a “cavity.”
Moreover, as indicated at page 5 of our decision, Kornrumpf
clearly suggests, in columns 4-6, the use of a cavity into
which an integrated circuit is placed.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007