Appeal No. 96-1515
Application 08/161/859
claims 1-4, 15-24, 26-28 and 30-32. We reach the opposite
conclusion with respect to claims 5-14 and 25. Accordingly,
we affirm-in-part.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1, 5, 15 and
28 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. This
rejection is made on the ground that the specification as
originally filed provides no support for the invention now
being claimed. More particularly, the examiner argues that
the specification does not support the densified region being
in contact with outside air. According to the examiner, the
densified region has a protective coating around it [answer,
page 3]. The examiner also argues that the specification
provides no support for the densified region or densified
layer having the same composition as the package resin.
According to the examiner, the protective film of the
invention has a different composition than the conventional
epoxy resin enclosure [id.].
With respect to the first argument, appellants assert
that the embodiment of Figure 2(A) clearly establishes that
the densified layer is in contact with the atmosphere or
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007