Appeal No. 1997-1885
Application No. 08/296,671
a semiconductor device package in which the elements of the
device are encapsulated in a molded, plastic package. The
examiner explains the basis for his conclusion that the
invention of each of the appealed claims would have been
obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 [answer,
pages 4-5].
Appellants have directed their arguments in the briefs
to four different features of the claimed invention. These
features are the molded cap feature, the stepped lead frame
feature, the lead frame size features, and the package size
features. The only one of these features included in
independent claim 1 is the molded cap feature.
Appellants argue that the recitation of a “plastic cap
molded over the top surface of the metal base, the die and an
inner portion of lead frame” precludes a preformed plastic cap
and requires instead that the plastic cap be formed in situ as
a molding operation. Appellants note that Mahulikar ’299 and
Mahulikar ’292 clearly use preformed caps to cover and
encapsulate the integrated circuit die. Although the Suzuki
package uses an in situ plastic molding operation to create
package 7, appellants argue that Suzuki does not teach a metal
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007