Appeal No. 2005-0181
Application No. 09/781,631
appellant does not address the obviousness of the claimed method.
It is true that appellant does not dispute the examiner’s
finding that because the composition in Tang is used for
encapsulating electronic components, then appellants method
claims are conventional in the art. As such, the examiner states
an obvious selection would have been an integrated circuit and an
organic or ceramic substrate as the electronic component because
integrated circuit chips are commonly encapsulated with an epoxy
resin compositions. Because appellant does not dispute this
finding, we support the examiner’s position. We observe that in
column 8, at lines 23-28, of Tang, that the epoxy resin
compositions are suitable for encapsulating systems for
electrical and electronic components.
In view of the above, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 34, 36, 39, 40, 44, 47, and 49-70 as being
obvious over Tang. We reverse the rejection, pro forma, with
respect to claim 48.
VIII. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 31, 32, 34 and
35 as being anticipated by Usui
We consider claims 31 and 32 in this rejection.
The examiner’s position for this rejection is set forth on
pages 8 and 9 of the answer. The examiner’s position is that
Usui discloses the same kind of composition as claimed in
appellant’s claim 31. As such, the examiner states that the same
composition would have the claimed coefficient of thermal
expansion as recited in appellant’s claim 32.
It does not appear that appellant specifically responds to
this rejection. Appellant does make a general statement on page
9 of the brief that Usui does not “realize or solve the problems
described by appellant.” Appellant states that Usui is not
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007