Appeal No. 1997-1885
Application No. 08/296,671
molded plastic as the background or prior art for their
invention. Likewise, Mahulikar ’299 describes such plastic
packages as a background to his disclosure of the two piece
package [column 1]. Thus, we find that the artisan would
clearly have been familiar with both the molded plastic
package and the two-piece package and the fact that they are
both used to protect the manufacture of integrated circuit
dies.
If the artisan chose to make the top cover of the
Mahulikar combination using the molded plastic technique of
Suzuki as proposed by the examiner, the limitations of clause
(e) of claim 1 would be satisfied. That is, the Suzuki method
of forming a plastic cover would result in the plastic being
molded over all the exposed portions of the metal base and die
of the Mahulikar combination which would result in the plastic
cover being in direct contact with the die.
Appellants’ arguments do not address the obviousness
of combining the teachings of Suzuki with the Mahulikar
combination. Appellants dismiss each Mahulikar patent as not
having the claimed plastic cap molded over the metal base, and
appellants dismiss Suzuki as not having a plastic cap and a
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007