Appeal No. 95-3348
Application 07/944,967
The examiner erroneously concluded (answer at 5) that any two
auxiliary pads that are adjacent to one another are separated
from and disposed on opposite sides of a corresponding main die.
Furthermore, independent claim 1 requires that the
supporting leads for the main die pad and the supporting leads
for the two auxiliary die pads extend in "opposite directions."
Looking at Shiga's Figures 1(B) and 1(E), we do not see the
supporting leads for one main die pad going one way and the
supporting leads for two auxiliary die pads going in an
"opposite" direction. The examiner's conclusion that leads 3',
3'', and 3''' extend inwardly in opposite directions is without
basis. The most that can be said is that supporting leads 3' and
3''' extend in opposite directions and that supporting leads 3
and 3'' extend in opposite directions. But that is not enough to
meet the claim. The term "opposite" is not met by the more
generic characteristic of simply being "different." The examiner
has not adequately explained how two of the leads 3, 3', 3'', and
3''', extend in "opposite" direction with respect to another one
of 3, 3', 3'', and 3'''.
According to the appellant's specification, the various
"opposite side" and "opposite direction" features of the claim
are what allegedly give the appellant's invention the added
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007