Appeal No. 96-2243
Application 08/327,447
extrapolate any reasoning which would establish such a
correspondence. For these reasons, we will not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 19, and likewise dependent
claims 20 through 27 which also contain the limitations
discussed supra.
Turning to claim 30, Appellants argue:
The Applicants do not agree with the Examiner’s
position that the printed circuit of claim 30 may
“extend externally” via an “auxiliary means”. (Reply
Brief at page 3.)
While the pin (12,13) [of Kishida] may extend the
“electrical circuit,” it cannot be interpreted to
extend the wiring film when in fact the pin (12,13)
is a separate and distinct element. (Reply Brief at
page 5)
Looking at claim 30 we see the following language:
and a printed circuit which overlies and is
electrically connected to the at least one
semiconductor chip in the package and extends
externally of the package . . . . (emphasis added)
The Examiner contends that:
A printed circuit may “extend externally” via
auxiliary connection means that by way of a terminal
such as 32 forms an external connection extending
externally thereto which Kishida shows. Claim 30
fails to recite that the printed circuit is located
on the outside of the package. (Answer at page 6)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007