Appeal No. 96-1515
Application 08/161/859
1383, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1992). We find that appellants’
specification fails to provide an uncommon
definition for the phrase “protective film” so that we give
that phrase its broadest reasonable interpretation.
In our view, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“protective film” includes any covering which protects a
device against something. With this interpretation in mind,
we find that the outer resin layer 7 of Iga is a protective
film which is in contact with outside air as recited in claim
5. Although the resin layer 7 of Iga may not provide the type
of protection appellants had in mind, the resin layer 7
clearly protects the semiconductor chip against some
environmental conditions. We also note in passing that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of “protective film” would
render the invention of claim 5 anticipated by appellants’ own
prior art disclosure of Figure 1 in which the molding 41 meets
the definition of a “protective film.”
For the reasons just discussed, we sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claim 5 as being anticipated by the
disclosure of Iga. It naturally follows that the invention of
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007