Appeal No. 1997-1885
Application No. 08/296,671
We find no suggestion in Suzuki for making the lead
frame of the Mahulikar combination of two thicknesses as
recited in the claims. The examiner’s reading of Suzuki is
inconsistent with the claim language and the teachings of the
reference. The stepped lead frame feature appears in claims 2,
3, 12, 14, 23 and 24. Therefore, we do not sustain the
examiner’s rejection with respect to these claims.
Appellants’ remaining arguments are directed to the
lead frame size features and the package size features. The
examiner dismisses the claimed size limitations as obvious
design choices. Appellants argue that there is no suggestion
within the applied prior art that the size limitations recited
in the claims are suggested or achievable. Again, we agree
with appellants.
There is absolutely no suggestion in the Mahulikar
patents that the packages produced therein can be made to fall
within the claimed range. The examiner’s mere statement that
it would have been obvious to make integrated circuit packages
as small as possible cannot form the required evidence of
obviousness. The Mahulikar packages may already be as small as
possible and still fail to meet the size limitations of the
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007