Appeal No. 1997-1186
Application No. 08/319,913
combination of the content of various references, there must
be some teaching, suggestion or motivation in the prior art to
make the specific combination proposed by the examiner. In re
Raynes, 7 F.3d 1037, 1039, 28 USPQ2d 1630, 1631 (Fed. Cir.
1993); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Obviousness cannot be established by
hindsight combination to produce the claimed invention. In re
Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir.
1991). Here, the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness.
Simply put, Hingorany, the primary reference upon which
the examiner has relied, discloses a semiconductor package
which includes a mounting flag (28) made of a material
different from that of leadframe (12), the mounting flag being
supported at the base of cavity (34) so that additional
support is provided for the mounting flag. A semiconductor
device (38) such as an integrated circuit is disposed on the
mounting flag (Figures 2-5). Ishibashi discloses a
semiconductor pressure sensor which includes a mounting flag
(211) detachable from a leadframe (200) and a sensor die (31)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007