Appeal No. 2004-0463
Application 09/827,791
and 28-31 over APAF 1-3 in view of Huang; and claims 22, 24
and 27 over APAF 1-3 in view of Huang and Magni.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to
address only the independent claims, i.e., claims 1, 5, 21
and 26.
Each of the independent claims requires an elongate,
straight first lead and an L-shaped second lead having a wire
bonding arm with a proximal end which is proximate to the first
lead. For these claim features the examiner relies upon APAF 1-3
(answer, pages 4-7). The examiner argues, regarding APAF 1-3
(answer, page 9):
As seen from the top view of the package, the lead (16)
having a small wiring bonding arm portion (closest to
the die pad) is generally elongate. The elongate
portion is the part that extends away from the die pad
and has the distal end. Because the elongate portion
of the lead has no curvature, the examiner has
interpreted this lead to be elongate and “straight.”
The claims require an elongate, straight first lead, not a
first lead having a straight, elongate portion. The examiner has
not explained how lead 16 can be considered straight while
lead 20, which has a similar shape, is L-shaped. Also, the
examiner has not explained how lead 16’s elongate portion itself
can be considered a lead, particularly considering that wire 30
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007