Appeal No. 96-0380
Application No. 08/229,857
outer ends of leads 22 to inner ends of outer lead frame 29 or
42. Appellants point out that Appellants' independent claims
1 and 11 set forth second conductive fingers that define a
second gap, where the second gap is less than the first gap.
Appellants argue that
neither Burns nor the admitted prior art suggests or teaches
this claimed structure.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the
Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed.
Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ
1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Upon a closer review of Burns, we find that Burns does
teach in column 6, line 52, through column 7, line 20, that
lead 22 is first bonded to the bonding bumps 28 of the die and
then bonded to the lead frame members 29. Thus, Burns does
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007