Appeal No. 98-0457
Application 08/604,813
rejecting claims 1 and 16. In particular, we note the
argument that appellants’ specification “cast[s] considerable
doubt on whether a bag including transparent material would
have satisfactory moisture transmission properties” (brief,
page 8), and the argument that appellants’ specification
“suggests that transparent material should not be used in
moisture barrier bags because transparent material transmits
moisture which could damage wafers in the bag” (brief, page
9). These arguments are not well taken because, in our view,
they misrepresent what the “Background” section of appellants’
specification discloses was the state of the art at the time
of appellants’ invention, and because they draw an unwarranted
conclusion as to what the discussion of the prior art in
appellants’ specification would have fairly taught one of
ordinary skill in the art. From our perspective, the
“Background” section of the specification simply indicates
that semi-conductor wafer packages made entirely of ultra-low
moisture transmission rate opaque material , or entirely of 3
3“In the past, the moisture barrier bags were made
entirely of low cost material having ultra-low moisture
transmission rates. . . . Because the laminate is opaque,
technicians and machines are unable to optically inspect the
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007