Appeal No. 96-1705
Application No. 08/296,269
Pashby in view of Yabe and Tsukide. Pashby teaches an
encapsulated semiconductor module similar to what appellants
disclosed as being the admitted prior art. The examiner
recognized that the module of Pashby did not have coined
regions as recited in independent claims 2 and 3. The
examiner cited Yabe and Tsukide as teaching the use of lead
frame conductors having coined bonding regions and uncoined
regions. The examiner concluded that it would have been
obvious to the artisan to modify the Pashby module to have
coined and uncoined regions as taught by Yabe and Tsukide
[answer, pages 4-5].
Appellants argue that Yabe is not within the art of
wire bonded lead frames. Appellants also argue that the
Pashby device was designed to avoid the very connection
problems accepted in Tsukide. Thus, appellants argue that
there is absolutely no motivation to modify the Pashby device
to have conductors with coined and uncoined regions except in
an effort to reconstruct this invention in hindsight [brief,
pages 7-13]. We agree with appellants’ arguments set forth in
the brief.
We agree with appellants that Yabe is not concerned
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007