Appeal No. 2000-0949
Application No. 08/721,505
Claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being unpatentable over
Holdgrafer. Claims 6-8, 15 and 20-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Holdgrafer in view of Rostoker.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 16, mailed Sep. 10, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 15, filed Jun. 22, 1999) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
2
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
The examiner maintains that the "descriptions [in Holdgrafer] set forth the same
meaning as is in the instant claim of determining a location of a longitudinal axis of the tip
portion of the lead finger; locating the bond site on the lead finger along the longitudinal
We also make the following observations: (1) Appellant has apparently deleted an additional line2
in the amendment of column 1 wherein line 31 should remain in the text. (2) In column 3, line 10 "leadfree"
should be corrected to "leadframe."
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007