Appeal No. 2006-1230 Παγε 10
Application No. 10/137,586
We turn next to claim 12. We affirm the rejection of claim
12 for the same reasons as we affirmed the rejection of claim 3.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 13. We affirm the
rejection of claim 13 for the same reasons as we affirmed the
rejection of claim 4.
We turn next to claim 14. Appellant asserts (brief, page
13) that Saito does not teach that the unreacted energy-reactive
material is not bonded or fused to the surface. Appellant adds
(reply brief, page 3) that “the disclosure of Saito is limited to
a packaged semiconductor device 1 with a resin film 7 including
both reacted regions 2, 3 and unreacted regions secured to a
surface thereof.” From the disclosure (page 6) of Saito we find
the resin film 7 is coated on the surface of the molded resin
component 1. From the disclosure that the resin is coated on the
surface, we find no disclosure that the coated resin that is not
energy reacted, is fused or bonded to the surface. Thus, we find
that the masked areas are not fused or bonded to the surface
since they are not exposed to the laser or ultraviolet
irradiation. Accordingly, we find that Saito meets the language
of claim 14. The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007