Appeal 2006-3236
Inter Partes Reexamination Control No. 95/000,006
is an intended use, but the Examiner fails to recognize that intended use
refers to statements in the preamble and the second wall surface is not in the
preamble (id. at 12-13).
Requester argues that "[t]here are no limitations in the claim
specifying the shape of the device, nor are there any limitations specifying
the manner in which horizontal movement is to be limited or quantifying the
amount of the limitation of movement" (Requester's Br. 15). "If the
semiconductor device is dislodged upward from this 'seated' position, so
long as it is below the top of the 'corner guide 60', its horizontal movement
will be 'limited,' since it will eventually contact some portion of the 'second
wall surface' as it moves horizontally in either direction." (Id. at 16.)
Patent Owners do not respond to the Requester's arguments in their
Rebuttal Brief. Patent Owners again argue that "it is improper for Examiner
to add to the disclosure of Brahmbhatt by contending that 'if' a
component 12 were designed in a particular way, its horizontal movement
would be limited by the vertical portion 70" (Patent Owners' Rebuttal Br. 7)
since Brahmbhatt does not disclose such a component.
The Examiner maintains the position in the Right of Appeal Notice
that "[t]he second wall surface of Brahmbhatt is capable of functioning to
limit horizontal movement of a semiconductor device of appropriate shape
(as explained in the rejection) . . . " (Answer 27).
- 27 -
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013