Appeal No. 96-3357
Application 08/292,491
The Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.
1996. This, combined with the specification and the brief as
discussed at the outset of this opinion, calls for a “surface
mounted device” to be directly sitting on the mounting
surface. Thus, the limitation “...the first top surface
having a surface mount pad for physical and electrical
connection to the lead frame,” [claim 2, lines 5 to 7] is not
met by Kuo. Even if we ignore the fact that Kuo does not show
a lead frame and assume that an electrical and physical
connection is provided by the wires 36 as they are bonded to
pad 38, the configuration of pad 38 on the bonding tier 42 of
layer 32 is such that die 14 cannot be surface mounted on it
and still accomplish the needed heat transfer to the spreader
18 with any efficiency. We, therefore, conclude that Kuo is
not directed to a circuit board for receiving a surface mount
package.
Next, we consider the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
over Brown. The Examiner, on page 3 of the answer, states
that “Concerning Brown and claim 1 ... figure 10 is relevant.”
We again agree with the Appellant for the same rationale as
for Kuo. Die 154 in Brown does not make a contact with pad
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007